Comment

Representation ID: 1559

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Janet de Haas

I&O_1667
I would like to register my objection to the possible proposal to remove Green Belt protection from land on the eastern edge of Frodsham. This land has provided enjoyment and recreation to the local people for many years. It has several footpaths which connect with the river Weaver and Hobhey wood , has wonderful views to the river and for miles beyond and supports a variety of wildlife and farming. The land does not have good access and it would be a long walk to the middle of Frodsham with a steep walk back so it would increase car congestion in the town. As  noted in the Town plan, Frodsam has bus and rail links but they are very infrequent and as your survey shows, nearly everyone goes to work by car. The nature of the settlement on the hill means that many people rule out walking or cycling.  In previous plans land was designated for development but that has not taken place. The land by the doctor's surgery is still open and the field adjoining the A56 opposite the entrance to Castle Park has not been developed. That has good road access and easy walking to the Town centre.  In conclusion,  I don't see the need to remove Green belt protection from land on the east side of Frodsham,  especially when previously designated sites have not yet been developed. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1560

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs L Pilling

I&O_1668
It has come to my attention that there are plans in the pipe line to build on farmland in Frodsham. The plans I have perused are totally unsympathetic and inconsistent to the stated core values of the local Neighbourhood plan and I strongly object to them! It threatens to irreparably harm the character, infrastructure and the environment of our historic town. Frodsham is a small 13th century market town with a close knit community vibe and a population of just over 9000. A large scale development, as is proposed and shown on the CWAC local plan, will be utterly damaging to the character of our market town; it will be a devastating transition to a town with centuries of deep historical roots. There are many serious implications to be had if the development FR01, FR02, and FR03 goes ahead, not least the congestion it will cause in and around Frodsham, especially with the M56 being in such close proximity; this already causes horrendous traffic problems when it is gridlocked. The congestion will only dramatically escalate and our air quality compromised with such an overwhelming inorganic population increase, due to an appalling 'off the scale’ development, which in turn will also have a detrimental impact on our almost one hundred year old swing bridge.  Even a mere modest increase in population and development can cause a multitude of problems, let alone one of this size. We are not equipped with an infrastructure to cope with such a magnitude of people and it'll definitely impose extreme pressure on the local government. There is even now, a lack of NHS dentists in the area for residents, along with long waiting times for Drs appointments. We do not have the school capacity either to fulfil the promise of an education for all children and adults alike. There will no doubt be a slower response time too for all emergency services needed; possibly putting lives at risk! We are already overstretched in more ways than one and the proposed development will only exacerbate these issues. Farmland should continue to be upheld for the vital role it plays, in food security and biodiversity; once it’s gone it’s almost impossible to recover and in this instance will be gone for ever! Many wildlife habitats will be disrupted too with the demise, including those at the Hobb Hey ancient woodland; it is an important biodiverse site. There are many benefits to be had with the woodland and surrounding farmland too; including the function of a flood defence, as it also acts as a natural sponge for any deluges we suffer. This is an important issue we need to concern ourselves with now, due to the frequent increase of extreme weather we are more often than not experiencing. My conclusion in this matter, is to say that I support both the idea and implementation of a small sustainable development of homes on brownfield sites. Accommodation designed to encourage movement within our elderly population into smaller and easily maintained properties, as well as some affordable starter homes is totally acceptable and serves our community well; it aligns with Frodsham’s market town and demographic status. However,  I do not support the   immense development of FR01, FR02 and FR03.  The scale,  location and potential impact of this development are entirely disproportionate to the needs of our town. I would genuinely like to understand whose interests these plans truly serve.  This particular development and in the area shown, is definitely not in the best interests of Frodsham, the surrounding areas, or its residents; I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals and remind you of the long term compelling effects it will have on our community, heritage, infrastructure and environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 1572

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Brian McNamara

I&O_1680
As a Frodsham resident I feel absolutely angered by your plans , as we have not got the infrastructure or the public amenities for your ludicrous plans �

Comment

Representation ID: 1573

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: James Hawkes

I&O_1681
FR001 and FR002 should not be built on, the land is not suitable with it being greenbelt land and already susceptable to flooding. Building on this land will only increase the floor risk to not only the new homes but existing homes in the area. This development would also ruin the ancient Hob Hey woodland putting multiple wildlife species at risk and removing some of the only green land around this area of Frodsham. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1580

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Travel Services

I&O_1689
As a lifelong  Frodsham resident I am writing to formally object to the proposed housing development on Green Belt land, specifically sites FRO01 and FRO02, as part of the Local Plan 2025 consultation. I believe the development of these sites is not in the best interests of Frodsham, its residents, or the wider community, and I would like to outline my concerns. 1. Loss of Green Belt Land The development of sites FRO01 and FRO02 would result in the significant loss of Green Belt land, which plays an essential role in preserving the character and openness of the area. Green Belt land is meant to prevent urban sprawl, protect the countryside, and provide space for agriculture and recreation. The proposed development would undermine these fundamental principles and lead to a permanent loss of valuable green space. 2. Impact on Local Environment and Wildlife Both sites are home to a variety of wildlife and contribute to the local ecosystem. Developing these areas would destroy habitats and lead to the displacement of species, which would have a negative impact on local biodiversity. The environmental consequences of such a development should not be underestimated, especially given the climate crisis and the need to preserve natural spaces. 3. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain The proposed housing development would significantly increase the population of Frodsham, which in turn would put additional pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, and healthcare facilities. The area is already facing challenges with traffic congestion, and the addition of new homes without a clear plan to improve infrastructure would exacerbate these issues. There is also concern over the environmental impact of increased traffic emissions. 4. Inadequate Consultation and Community Input I am also concerned about the adequacy of the consultation process. Many residents have not been properly informed about the scale of the proposed development or its potential impact on the local community. A more transparent and inclusive process is necessary to ensure that all stakeholders are fully aware of the implications and can provide meaningful input. 5. Alternative Sites There may be other, more suitable sites for development that do not involve encroaching on Green Belt land. The Council should explore alternative options, including previously developed land (brownfield sites), which would help alleviate housing demand while preserving the integrity of the Green Belt. 6. Housing Need and Sustainability While there is a clear need for housing, it is crucial that development is sustainable and aligned with the needs of the local community. The proposed housing development should consider not only the number of houses but also the type, affordability, and long-term sustainability of the homes. It is essential that new developments are designed with regard to the existing infrastructure and the overall quality of life for residents. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the inclusion of sites FRO01 and FRO02 in the Local Plan 2025 and urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reconsider its approach to development in the area. I ask that the Council take into account the environmental, social, and economic consequences of developing on Green Belt land and look for more sustainable and less damaging alternatives. I trust my concerns will be carefully considered as part of the consultation process. Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Comment

Representation ID: 1581

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Ellams

I&O_1690
As a lifelong  Frodsham resident I am writing to formally object to the proposed housing development on Green Belt land, specifically sites FRO01 and FRO02, as part of the Local Plan 2025 consultation. I believe the development of these sites is not in the best interests of Frodsham, its residents, or the wider community, and I would like to outline my concerns. 1.  Loss of Green Belt Land The development of sites FRO01 and FRO02 would result in the significant loss of Green Belt land, which plays an essential role in preserving the character and openness of the area. Green Belt land is meant to prevent urban sprawl, protect the countryside, and provide space for agriculture and recreation. The proposed development would undermine these fundamental principles and lead to a permanent loss of valuable green space. 2.  Impact on Local Environment and Wildlife Both sites are home to a variety of wildlife and contribute to the local ecosystem. Developing these areas would destroy habitats and lead to the displacement of species, which would have a negative impact on local biodiversity. The environmental consequences of such a development should not be underestimated, especially given the climate crisis and the need to preserve natural spaces. 3.  Traffic and Infrastructure Strain The proposed housing development would significantly increase the population of Frodsham, which in turn would put additional pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, and healthcare facilities. The area is already facing challenges with traffic congestion, and the addition of new homes without a clear plan to improve infrastructure would exacerbate these issues. There is also concern over the environmental impact of increased traffic emissions. 4.  Inadequate Consultation and Community Input I am also concerned about the adequacy of the consultation process. Many residents have not been properly informed about the scale of the proposed development or its potential impact on the local community. A more transparent and inclusive process is necessary to ensure that all stakeholders are fully aware of the implications and can provide meaningful input. 5.  Alternative Sites There may be other, more suitable sites for development that do not involve encroaching on Green Belt land. The Council should explore alternative options, including previously developed land (brownfield sites), which would help alleviate housing demand while preserving the integrity of the Green Belt. 6.  Housing Need and Sustainability While there is a clear need for housing, it is crucial that development is sustainable and aligned with the needs of the local community. The proposed housing development should consider not only the number of houses but also the type, affordability, and long-term sustainability of the homes. It is essential that new developments are designed with regard to the existing infrastructure and the overall quality of life for residents. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the inclusion of sites FRO01 and FRO02 in the Local Plan 2025 and urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reconsider its approach to development in the area. I ask that the Council take into account the environmental, social, and economic consequences of developing on Green Belt land and look for more sustainable and less damaging alternatives. I trust my concerns will be carefully considered as part of the consultation process. Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Comment

Representation ID: 1599

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Rodney Foster

FRO01 & FRO02
I&O_1709
Please note that I am strongly objecting to : Policies SS41, SS42,SS43 I strongly object to the FRO01 & FRO02 proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 1604

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Quirk

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_1714
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of Green Belt land at sites FRO01 and FRO02 in the Draft Local Plan 2025. This objection relates specifically to questions SS41, SS42, SS43, SS45, and SS47 of the consultation and is based on legal, policy, environmental, and infrastructure grounds, as outlined below. 1. Green Belt Protection Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt sites. According to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , Green Belt development is deemed inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such circumstances have been adequately demonstrated in the draft plan. The core purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl, protect the countryside, and maintain openness — all of which this proposal undermines. 2. Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances Cheshire West and Chester Council has not provided robust evidence that alternative options — such as brownfield redevelopment or less sensitive land — were thoroughly explored before proposing release of Green Belt land. The NPPF is clear: Green Belt release must be a last resort , and exceptional circumstances must be fully evidenced and justified . The current documentation fails to meet this standard. 3. Infrastructure Strain (SS47) Frodsham’s infrastructure is already under significant strain: The A56 is heavily congested, and even minor disruption to the M56 creates gridlock. Local GP surgeries and primary/secondary schools are operating near or at full capacity. No concrete infrastructure upgrades or funding commitments are presented in parallel with this proposed housing expansion. To proceed with this level of development without infrastructure guarantees would be unsustainable and damaging to the quality of life for current and future residents. 4. Environmental Sensitivity Sites FRO01 and FRO02 are adjacent to Hob Hey Wood , an ancient woodland and a designated Site of Biological Importance . These sites serve as crucial wildlife corridors and ecological buffer zones. Development here would fragment habitats, threaten biodiversity, and irreparably damage the ecological integrity of the area. The draft plan does not include adequate Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) or biodiversity net gain measures, contrary to NPPF guidelines. 5. Flood Risk These proposed sites lie within natural water absorption zones for Frodsham. The surrounding area, including Langdale Way, has a record of surface flooding and sewage issues . Replacing permeable green space with hardstanding will increase surface runoff and exacerbate downstream flood risk — a clear conflict with the council’s own flood management strategy. 6. Community Impact and Wellbeing The proposed loss of green space poses a serious risk to public health and community cohesion. Access to natural green areas like FRO01 and FRO02 supports physical and mental wellbeing , community identity, and healthy lifestyles — all objectives set out in the NPPF under its aim to foster healthy, inclusive communities . The plan makes no commitment to preserving equivalent accessible green space if development proceeds. 7. Precedent and Policy Breach Allowing development on these sites would set a damaging precedent for future erosion of Green Belt protections across the borough. Furthermore, the proposal contradicts several elements of national planning policy and undermines the principles of sustainable development and localism that underpin both the NPPF and the council’s existing development framework. 8. Final Position For all the reasons stated above, I strongly object to the inclusion of sites FRO01 and FRO02 in the Draft Local Plan 2025. I respectfully urge the council to: Remove both sites from the Local Plan Review ; Uphold its statutory duty to protect Green Belt land unless no reasonable alternatives exist — which has not been demonstrated in this case; Reassess the plan’s compliance with national policy , especially regarding Green Belt use, environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and community wellbeing. Thank you for considering this objection.

Comment

Representation ID: 1610

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Crimes

FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03
I&O_1720
Comment:- my earlier comments regarding development on greenbelt are supported by National guidance which clearly states that development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives.

Comment

Representation ID: 1671

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Stockbridge

I&O_1781
1. This Development Must Not Go Ahead 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. 2. Traffic is Already Broken The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. Add hundreds of extra vehicles from FR001 and FR002 and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk. Source: Hansard (UK Parliament), 2015 – https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-11- 17/debates/15111754000002/M56(Junctions12To14) 3. Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature. Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind. Source: (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/). 4. Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete. Source: Planning Inspectorate – https://nsip- documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069- 6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf 5. Significant Disturbance to The Woodland Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. The resulting huge increase in pets would result in problems. Cats are supreme predators which would take a toll on wildlife. Dogs would also disturb wildlife and their feces have been shown to cause nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/07/dog-pee-and-poo-harming- nature-reserves-study 6. Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! Source: Cheshire West SFRA – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and- travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc- 4a3ea446504e 7. GP Practices and Schools Are Full There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes mean more pressure, more waiting, more stretched services. No part of this development includes concrete plans or funding for new public services. That means the burden falls on existing ones, which are already struggling. Source: Cheshire West Monitoring Reports – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building-control/local- plan/authority-monitoring-report 8. Air Quality and Light Pollution Will Get Worse Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust, and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected. Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles. Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution. Source: Cheshire West AQMA Action Plan – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/pests-pollution-food-safety/pollution- and-air-quality/air-quality-review-and-assessment/action-plans/action-plan-frodsham- 0118.pdf Source: Bat Conservation Trust Guidance NoteGN08/23Bats and Artificial Lighting At Night. Source: Impact of light pollution on moth morphology–A 137-year study in Germany https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.05.004). 9. Antisocial Behaviour and Isolation Will Rise New estates without integrated planning lead to social fragmentation. These areas become disconnected, under-policed, and under-supported. This isn’t speculation. It’s known from other developments nationally. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that growth supports community cohesion. This proposal does not. It isolates new homes on the edge of town and dumps responsibility for cohesion onto already stretched services. Source: NPPF (2023) – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning- policy-framework--2 10. House Prices Will Drop People buy in Frodsham for access to open countryside, peace, and green views. Strip those away, and the value drops. This development removes the very features that give existing homes their worth. Homeowners who’ve invested in the area will be hit with lower resale values and a loss of the rural edge they were sold on. Developers walk away with profit. Residents are left picking up the cost. 11. Greenbelt Is Not A Technicality The Greenbelt is there for a reason. Once you breach it, you set precedent for more erosion. This is not just about FRO01 or FRO02. It’s about what follows next if this goes ahead. National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives. This land should remain untouched. Source: GOV.UK Greenbelt Guidance – ttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt- land 12. Final Statement – Reject This Now This proposal is bad planning. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO01 and FRO02 must be removed from development plans entirely. This objection demands that the proposal be rejected in full. Nothing else will do.

Comment

Representation ID: 1695

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Marg Halliwell

I&O_1805
I have seen the proposed development plan and think that its a terrible idea. Frodsham does not have the capacity or infrastructure to support such a housing development. Schools are full, Doctors and Dentists are already struggling with the existing resident population. I rarely venture into or out of Frodsham at the weekends because the traffic is horrendous. I think the questions and worries I wish to ask have been covered by those who are more versed in the details of the effects this proposal would have on a two like Frodsham. However, may I just add that as a 60 something individual who grew up on a council estate in Manchester and lived in many cities in the country including Leicester, Birmingham and London: I feel that I am qualified to say that what you propose would completely damage the community spirit that exists in Frodsham. Its rare to find a place of quality to bring up your children where they can thrive and be safe and learn strong values.  I have seen first hand the destruction of “community” in cities where people are crammed into areas and this has created untold social problems. Please let areas such as Frodsham stay as they are as an example of how we should live. The saying “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” seems apt at the moment

Comment

Representation ID: 1697

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Marg Halliwell

I&O_1807
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. Objections in detail Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature. Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind. Source: ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/ ). Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete. Source: Planning Inspectorate – https://nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069-6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf Significant Disturbance to The Woodland Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. The resulting huge increase in pets would result in problems. Cats are supreme predators which would take a toll on wildlife. Dogs would also disturb wildlife and their feces have been shown to cause nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/.../dog-pee-and-poo-harming... Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! Source: Cheshire West SFRA – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and-travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e

Comment

Representation ID: 1755

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul George

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_1865
Please accept this email as a direct objection to the planning development at Hob Hey Wood Frodsham (plans SS41/SS42 & SS43). Due to concerns at the nature of the planned development namely new house builds and the negative impact it will have on ancient woodland and green belt zone. Whilst I acknowledge the need for new houses to be built, I firmly believe that brown sites should be explored and exhausted in the first instance. The unquantifiable damage to the environment and wildlife in addition to the historic woodland being destroyed forever I urge you to reject this planning application. If you as a council genuinely care for and are concerned about protecting vital spaces then you will act accordingly. Failure to reject this development will constitute a negligent and damaging attitude towards the area both in terms of greenbelt/wildlife and existing residents. I would like you to acknowledge this email by responding to this email address to confirm receipt. I sincerely hope that you take this view into account and think long and hard about the longer term impact rather than hiding behind superficial potential benefits.  Do not fall for the commerciality of new house builds (increased council tax etc) and think about the existing beauty of this area, you owe it to all Frodsham residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 1758

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Dianne Lightfoot

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_1868
Good afternoon I write to object to Policies SS41 SS42 SS43 which affect Hob Hey Wood Frodsham  I believe the proposed developments are a threat to wildlife and irreplaceable ancient woodland. Green spaces are also important for community and health . The local infrastructure ie demand for health and social care, education, roads, water supply etc is already stretched beyond reasonable capacity at times. Please withdraw FRO01 and FRO02 before one of Cheshires best small towns is ruined. Thank You

Comment

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Bonner

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_1870
I am writing to make a comment on the proposal for building houses on green belt land in Frodsham. Particularly the land above Langdale way and beside Bradley to Watery Lane. (FRO01 and FRO02) Houses here would pose a severe risk to the ancient woodland of Hob Hey wood. The risk of flooding and sewerage flooding.    The increase in traffic trying to turn onto the B5052, and Fluin Lane, to access Frodsham and the A56 would be horrendous. The schools and doctors are already at their limit. Frodsham has limited parking for using the local shops etc. and the station car park, which is situated up a blind bend and near the tip (which has lorries entering to remove the full containers). I am very much against housing development in these areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 1763

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Amesbury

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_1873
Introduction I submit this representation in response to the Regulation 18 “Issues & Options” consultation (4 July – 29 August 2025) for the emerging Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan. I strongly object to any proposal to allocate or de-designate land adjacent to Hob Hey Wood  in Frodsham. This area is of exceptional ecological, hydrological, and community value. Annotated Map – Spatial Context & Ecological Sensitivity Hob Hey Wood boundary, adjacent land, wildlife corridors, hydrology, and Fluin Lane/A56 congestion points. The annotated map above illustrates the woodland’s buffer zones, habitat connectivity, and the location of key access points, highlighting the sensitivity of adjacent land. Policy Conflict Overview National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Para 174 : Recognise intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Para 180(a) : Avoid significant harm to biodiversity. Para 182 : Refuse development resulting in deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan: ENV 4 : Conserve and enhance biodiversity. ENV 6 : Ensure high-quality design that respects local character. Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan: Policy H1 : Protect Local Wildlife Sites. Policy ENV2 : Safeguard green infrastructure and habitat connectivity. Ecological & Environmental Constraints Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland  and Local Wildlife Site  designation. Habitat for over 400 recorded species, including protected species such as bats and badgers. Vital wildlife corridor linking habitats across the valley. Natural flood attenuation function. Risks of adjacent development include: Habitat fragmentation. Hydrological disruption and increased flood risk. Species disturbance. Loss of tranquillity and amenity. Flood Risk & Climate Resilience The site forms part of a natural floodplain. Development would increase impermeable surfaces, reducing flood storage capacity and increasing surface water run-off, contrary to NPPF Para 167  and Local Plan ENV 1 . Traffic Congestion & Air Quality Fluin Lane  is narrow, with high on-street parking and limited visibility. The Fluin Lane/A56 junction  has a history of congestion and past NO₂ exceedances. The Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan survey highlights traffic speed, congestion, and safety concerns. Additional development would exacerbate congestion, air pollution, and safety risks. Sustainability Appraisal & SEA Implications The site fails SA/SEA tests by: Threatening biodiversity and landscape character. Worsening air quality in known hotspots. Reducing climate resilience and natural flood management. Summary Table of Conflicts Issue Constraint / Policy Conflict Biodiversity Ancient woodland adjacency – NPPF 180 & 182; Local Plan ENV4; Neighbourhood Plan H1 Landscape Loss of valued countryside setting – NPPF 174; Local Plan ENV6; Neighbourhood Plan ENV2 Flood Risk Loss of floodplain function – NPPF 167; Local Plan ENV1 Traffic/Air Quality Worsens congestion and pollution on Fluin Lane/A56 Sustainability Fails SA/SEA criteria for ecology, transport, and climate resilience Summary of my objection Maintain exclusion of this site from development allocation in the Local Plan. Retain its protective designation ( This is not Grey Belt ) Prioritise traffic and air quality interventions for Fluin Lane/A56.

Comment

Representation ID: 1843

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: mary pownall

I&O_1953
FRO01 FRO02 building near Hob Hey Woods will destroy a hugely important asset for Frodsham community. This is a volunteer run woodland of ancient trees and native species which creates a haven of peace and tranquillity for local residents, Building here would destroy wildlife corridors and ruin an invaluable amenity for local people. It should be protected for future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1866

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Roberts

FRO01,FRO02
I&O_1978
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. Objections in detail   Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature. Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind. Source: ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/ ). Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete. Source: Planning Inspectorate –  https://nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069-6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf Significant Disturbance to The Woodland Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. The resulting huge increase in pets would result in problems. Cats are supreme predators which would take a toll on wildlife. Dogs would also disturb wildlife and their feces have been shown to cause nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/07/dog-pee-and-poo-harming-nature-reserves-study Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! Source: Cheshire West SFRA –  https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and-travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf Source: Financial Times –  https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e

Comment

Representation ID: 1871

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Weaver Frain

FRO01 (Hob Hey Wood)
I&O_1983
Infrastructure - Access / Transform   Position next to ancient woodland. FRO03 (opposite castle park). Dig lane, A56 is used an an alternative to the M56 when the latter is blocked / shut. all motorway traffic comes through Frodsham and Helsby and is frequently at a standstill.

Comment

Representation ID: 1889

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Shirley Jones

SS 42
I&O_2001
I am writing to formally object to the proposed site allocations SS41, SS42, and SS43 as part of the Local Plan consultation.   These proposals raise significant concerns for me and many others in the local community. In particular:   The proposed developments would place undue pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and medical services. It is already difficult to arrange GP appointments and there is pressure on school places in the area. The sites in question lie within or near greenbelt land and would result in the loss of important green space and biodiversity. Hob Hey wood is a valued local amenity with importance for wildlife and this development would be very detrimental to this special environment.  The scale and density of the development are not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. There would be a large change in the character of our market town and it would probably devalue house prices.  Flooding in this area from the many streams and waterways would probably become more of an issue with this number of properties on our precious greenbelt.     These developments would not only harm the environment but would also undermine the quality of life for current and future residents. I urge the council to reconsider the inclusion of SS41, SS42, and SS43 and seek more sustainable and appropriate alternatives.    Please register this letter as a formal objection to these site proposals.   Yours sincerely, Shirley Jones

Comment

Representation ID: 1896

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Garner

SS 42
I&O_2008
Dear Sir or Madam,   We are writing to formally object to the proposed developments SS41, SS42, and SS43. As residents of Langdale Way for over 20 years, we have made full and regular use of the areas of land that would be lost to these developments. These green spaces have played a vital role in supporting our physical and mental wellbeing.   The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the UK Government’s principal set of planning rules for England. Local planning authorities must take it into account when preparing Local Plans and when deciding individual planning applications. By demonstrating that this proposal conflicts with multiple NPPF requirements, we believe there is a clear planning basis for refusal.   These concerns also align with the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan, which contains specific policies requiring the protection of valued open spaces (Policy SOC 6), safeguarding of biodiversity and green infrastructure (Policy DM 35), proper management of flood risk (Policy DM 40), and provision of adequate infrastructure before approving major new housing (Policy STRAT 1). The proposed developments would conflict with all of these.   Our concerns are as follows:   Loss of a vital recreational area (NPPF Paragraph 93 / Local Plan SOC 6) The proposed development would remove one of the few remaining accessible open spaces in the area. This land has been essential for exercise, dog walking, and informal community activities, all of which contribute significantly to local quality of life. Both the NPPF and Local Plan require planning decisions to safeguard such spaces for health, wellbeing, and community cohesion.   Further depletion of local nature and biodiversity (NPPF Paragraphs 174–182 / Local Plan DM 35) The surrounding area is already nature-depleted. Destroying this land would worsen the decline, removing habitats for wildlife and disrupting the ecological balance. In particular, Hob Hey Wood — a rare and precious local woodland — would be harmed. Both the NPPF and Local Plan require the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and valued landscapes.   Flood risk (NPPF Paragraphs 159–169 / Local Plan DM 40) The proposed development site lies in an area where natural ground permeability helps manage rainwater and reduce surface water flooding. Removing this green space and replacing it with hard surfaces will increase the risk of flooding for surrounding homes and infrastructure, particularly during extreme weather events. The NPPF and Local Plan both require robust flood risk assessments and avoidance of developments that increase flood risk elsewhere.   Strain on already overstretched services (NPPF Paragraph 95 / Local Plan STRAT 1) As long-time residents, we have witnessed the steady degradation of essential services, including healthcare, dental provision, and education. Frodsham no longer has its own secondary school; Helsby High is already operating at capacity. The NPPF and Local Plan stress the need for sufficient school places and adequate infrastructure before approving large-scale housing developments.   Increased traffic, air pollution, and road safety concerns (NPPF Paragraphs 105 & 110 / Local Plan STRAT 1) Local roads are already heavily congested and struggle to cope with current demand. Adding further housing will exacerbate congestion, increase journey times, and heighten accident risks. More vehicles will also lead to higher levels of air pollution, which both the NPPF and Local Plan recognise as significant public health concerns.   For these reasons, we urge you to reject the proposed developments SS41, SS42, and SS43. Protecting our remaining green spaces, biodiversity, and community infrastructure should take priority over short-term housing targets.   Yours sincerely,   Neil Garner,

Comment

Representation ID: 1903

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Bennett

SS 42
I&O_2015
To whom it may concern, I am writing to object to the proposed development in Frodsham, specifically FRO01 and FRO02 . The reasons for my objections are: This area encompasses ancient woodland, which is home to many rare species. It is a haven for wildlife. The main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. There is no capacity for the additional traffic that FRO01 and FRO02 would bring. This additional traffic would also increase air, light and noise pollution. Building on these areas would increase the risk of floods. There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. The schools and GP practices are already operating at their limits. FRO01 and FRO02 are designated greenbelt and should not be built on. If more houses are needed in Frodsham, then FRO03 is the best solution, but please do not build on FRO01 and FRO02. Kind regards, Ruth Bennett

Comment

Representation ID: 1947

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andy Jones

I&O_2059
Subject: Objection to Development Proposals SS41, SS42, and SS43 I am writing to formally object to the proposed site allocations SS41, SS42, and SS43 as part of the Frodsham Local Plan consultation. These proposals raise significant concerns for me. In particular: The proposed developments would place undue pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and medical services. It is already difficult to arrange GP appointments and there is pressure on school places in the area. Traffic in Frodsham is frequently gridlocked in particular Thursday to Saturdays, made worse by the councils refusal to install traffic lights at the junction of Fluin Lane and the A56.  Whilst Frodsham has a railway station it is poorly served. TfW provide an hourly service to Liverpool and Manchester, the Manchester service is frequently over crowded with passengers having to stand to Manchester, the Northern Service between Chester and Leeds does not even stop outside peak hours. The sites in question lie within or near greenbelt land and would result in the loss of important green space and biodiversity. Hob Hey wood is a valued local amenity with importance for wildlife and this development would be very detrimental to this special environment.  There are brownfield sites that could be developed, in particular off the A56 at Sutton Quays. The scale and density of the development are not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. There would be a large change in the character of our market town.  Flooding in this area from the many streams and waterways would probably become more of an issue with this number of properties on our precious greenbelt. These developments would not only harm the environment but would also undermine the quality of life for current and future residents. I urge the council to reconsider the inclusion of SS41, SS42, and SS43 and seek more sustainable and appropriate alternatives.  Please register this letter as a formal objection to these site proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 1962

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Crocker

I&O_2077
FRO02 and FRO01 are totally unsuitable. FRO01: Encourages increased car use: It is a distance from the town and  on a hill location therefore reducing walking access to the town and its facilities This will result in more car use, subsequent pollution increase and pressure on overstretched parking. FRO01 and FRO02 are two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. It would add pressure to failing infrastructure with limited traffic access forced through a maze of narrow access routes. It would increase flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It uses valuable green belt land in a unique position near the River Weaver and Hob Hey Wood when other alternatives are available. Severe impact on ancient woodland : Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland. 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 and provide health benefits. 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. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Flood risk is a reality : Surface water flooding is a significant threat to homes In Frodsham. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FRO02 and FRO01 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1966

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: James Mcdonagh

Map 5.10 question SS 42
I&O_2081
To build on FR001 and FR002, would be to ignore entirely the community land and provisions such as Hob hey woodland which are used by many as an accessible and maintained natural woodland space within frodsham. To convert this to housing land would be to ignore the obvious drainage and flood prevention such environments provide not to mention the loss of wild life habitats. This would be a short sighted decision and strongly objectionable.

Comment

Representation ID: 1994

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Wright

SS 42
I&O_2110
  I am writing to object to any proposed housing developments in the two areas immediately east of Frodsham referred to as 'FRO01' and 'FRO02', which are currently green belt. Any building here would spoil the environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 2001

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Stockbridge

SS 42
I&O_2117
Dear Sirs, I would like to formally comment on the proposals to destroy and build on actively farmed green-belt land in Frodsham.   I have the following comments:   This Development Must Not Go Ahead This is not a polite suggestion. It is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Green-belt 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. Traffic is Already Broken The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. Add hundreds of extra vehicles from FR001 and FR002 and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk. Source: Hansard (UK Parliament), 2015 – https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-11- 17/debates/15111754000002/M56(Junctions12To14) 3. Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature. Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind. Source: ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/ ). 4. Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete. Source: Planning Inspectorate – https://nsip- documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069- 6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf 5. Significant Disturbance to The Woodland Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. The resulting huge increase in pets would result in problems. Cats are supreme predators which would take a toll on wildlife. Dogs would also disturb wildlife and their feces have been shown to cause nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/07/dog-pee-and-poo-harming- nature-reserves-study 6. Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! Source: Cheshire West SFRA – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and- travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc- 4a3ea446504e 7. GP Practices and Schools Are Full There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes mean more pressure, more waiting, more stretched services. No part of this development includes concrete plans or funding for new public services. That means the burden falls on existing ones, which are already struggling. Source: Cheshire West Monitoring Reports – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building-control/local- plan/authority-monitoring-report 8. Air Quality and Light Pollution Will Get Worse Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust, and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected. Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles. Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution. Source: Cheshire West AQMA Action Plan – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/pests-pollution-food-safety/pollution- and-air-quality/air-quality-review-and-assessment/action-plans/action-plan-frodsham- 0118.pdf Source: Bat Conservation Trust Guidance NoteGN08/23Bats and Artificial Lighting At Night. Source: Impact of light pollution on moth morphology–A 137-year study in Germany https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.05.004 ). 9. Antisocial Behaviour and Isolation Will Rise New estates without integrated planning lead to social fragmentation. These areas become disconnected, under-policed, and under-supported. This isn’t speculation. It’s known from other developments nationally. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that growth supports community cohesion. This proposal does not. It isolates new homes on the edge of town and dumps responsibility for cohesion onto already stretched services. Source: NPPF (2023) – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning- policy-framework--2 10. House Prices Will Drop People buy in Frodsham for access to open countryside, peace, and green views. Strip those away, and the value drops. This development removes the very features that give existing homes their worth. Homeowners who’ve invested in the area will be hit with lower resale values and a loss of the rural edge they were sold on. Developers walk away with profit. Residents are left picking up the cost. 11. Greenbelt Is Not A Technicality The Greenbelt is there for a reason. Once you breach it, you set precedent for more erosion. This is not just about FRO01 or FRO02. It’s about what follows next if this goes ahead. National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives. This land should remain untouched. Source: GOV.UK Greenbelt Guidance – ttps:// www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt- land 12. Final Statement – Reject This Now This proposal is bad planning. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO01 and FRO02 must be removed from development plans entirely. This objection demands that the proposal be rejected in full. Nothing else will do.

Comment

Representation ID: 2006

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: David Halliwell

SS 42
I&O_2122
Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Frodsham? 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. Objections in detail Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature. Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind. Source: ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/ ). Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete. Source: Planning Inspectorate – https://nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069-6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf 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:  Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! Source: Cheshire West SFRA – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and-travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e

Comment

Representation ID: 2027

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Becky Williams

FR001, FR002
I&O_2146
I also strongly object to development on FR001 and FR002 , which lie on either side of the ancient woodland  Hob Hey Wood . This is not a decorative patch of trees, but a functioning woodland supporting many species that rely on access to surrounding habitats. The FR001 and FR002 areas form part of wider habitat corridors that maintain the ecological health of the wood. Building here would sever those links permanently. Once a hedgerow is removed or a breeding ground is covered in concrete, it cannot simply be recreated. It is disheartening that, in today’s world, cutting down trees and destroying functioning habitats is often seen as a cheaper and easier option than restoring and repurposing derelict buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 2029

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Jun Wright

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2148
I am writing to object to any proposed housing developments in the two areas immediately east of Frodsham referred to as 'FRO01' and 'FRO02', which are currently green belt.  This reasons for the objections as follows: Green Belt Protection : The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Green Belt’s essential characteristics are its openness and permanence. This development would cause irreversible harm to both and undermines the purpose of the Green Belt in preventing urban sprawl. Environmental Impact : The area is home to a variety of wildlife and forms part of a vital local ecosystem. Development would result in habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, and potentially disrupt wildlife corridors. Infrastructure Pressure : Local services — including schools, GP surgeries, and roads — are already under significant pressure. Further housing in this location would exacerbate these issues without a clear plan for infrastructure improvements. I respectfully urge the council to reject any propopsed housing developments in the two areas and uphold the integrity of the local Green Belt.