Comment

Representation ID: 2047

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Jane and Eric Bennett

I&O_2167
Yes, don't build on FRO01 and FFO02. This is not a polite suggestion. It is a firm and direct objection to building on FRO01 and FRO02, 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 roots, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it. 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. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking in the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature. Flood risk is Not a Hypothetical In Frodsham flood 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 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. From the late 1900's to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way involving sewerage issues. House building in close proximity could result in these issues arising again!

Comment

Representation ID: 2073

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Hunt

I&O_2193
Hob hey wood I am rejecting polices SS41, SS42 and SS43. PLEASE leave this beautiful as it is

Comment

Representation ID: 2111

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2231
The areas FO01 and FO02 cover green field land.  The issues with building on this land are as follows…  Access to FO01 and FO02 - FR1 There is road access to these sites but they are via small, narrow residential side roads, frequently reduced to single carriage with passing places owing to the current residents and visitors parking on the roads. Townfield Lane is a narrow road and in some sections a single lane, it is not possible for cars to pass in opposite directions, owing to residents’ parking their cars on the road. For most of its length there are no white lines as it is too narrow.  It is not suitable for large volumes of traffic.  Doric Avenue and it’s tribrutary roads are also very narrow and without a white line indicating their narrow width. Langdale Way is already a very busy road for a side road and passes a primary school where a number of children walk and cycle to and from school.  There are already concerns about the volume of traffic, the parking and the speed of traffic travelling down the steep hill from the area of the proposed FO01/FO02 sites.  The cars that park around the convenience shop, as well as residents’ cars, render Langdale Way to a single lane carriage way at times where cars are unable to pass each other in opposite directions.  There is the possibility of increase in risk to the school children and others if this route were to be used as a primary access to FO01/FO02. Many of the other roads around the Lakes estate that feed into FO01 and FO02 are so narrow that they don’t have a central white line and cars can barely pass each other when travelling in opposite directions. In the document Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies - adopted 29 January 2015, it states that “The area is characterised by attractive countryside, varied landscapes and diverse settlements ranging from the historic city of Chester to small rural hamlets.”  If this ‘attractive countryside, varied landscapes and diverse settlements are changed or lost then the the character of the County is lost.  Any developments need to be in areas where it is local to industry and employment.  The document also says, “Three of the larger rural settlements, Neston, Frodsham and Helsby, are also located in the Green Belt in the more urbanised north of the borough.”  It is vitally important to maintain the rural settlements and Green Belt in these areas to ensure that there are places local to the other more industrialised areas local to Neston, Frodsham and Helsby. Exercise and leisure  - FR1 Question HW1; HW2; OS1 The areas FO01 and FO02 are vital areas for exercise and mindfulness as well as health and well-being.  During Covid pandemic Hob Hey wood and the footpaths that crisscross the FO01/FO02 area as well as the neighbouring fields became a vital resource for the promotion of mental health and exercise and continue to be so.  Should housing be built on FO01/FO02 there would be a loss of community facilities such as the walking footpaths, community orchards, pond trail and allotments.  Mental Health - the area FO01/FO02 includes open spaces for exercise, private owned allotments including an allotment that is used for GP prescription gardening to enhance mental health and also an allotment managed by adults with learning disabilities as part of their day care activities.  The evidence for the benefits of gardening on mental health as well as those with neurodiversity is well known, researched and published.  The loss of this resource would impact significantly on their health, wellbeing for those that use it as well as the loss of an adult day service facility for the disabled. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6334070/   https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03080226231198340 Mental health and leisure is a priority detailed in Frodsham’s Neighbourhood plan 2024-2030  stating that the green areas of the Town must be protected and any development should be considered in the light of this. https://frodshamplan.org.uk/images/docsandreps/Part%201.pdf   Environmental impact - Questions SD1; SD 3; SS 3 and FR1 The site FO01 and FO02 is crisscrossed with footpaths with hedgerows and fields which act as vital habitats and wildlife corridors connecting fragmented ecosystems as well as supporting a wide range of species.  They also play a vital role in regulating water flow, reducing soil erosion and mitigating climate change.  They provide nesting sites and a food source for animals, insects and other species.  Some of these fields are used for the production of food by one or more of the local farmers. 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 The areas of FO01 and FO02 incorporate Hob hey wood.  Hob Hey wood is a vital source for wildlife and horticultural diversity.  Many of the trees are protected as are the rare species of bats that reside there. https://frodsham.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/123.-Hob-Hey-Wood.pdf In Frodsham there is a pond trail including a number of ponds in the proposed development area.  Some of these ponds house protected species and are of importance. All the ponds can all be seen from public footpaths and are home to amphibians including great crested newts. Some ponds have been used as relocation sites for endangered amphibians that have been removed from construction sites. https://frodshamplan.org.uk/images/docsandreps/Part%201.pdf  Hob Hey Wood is a site of biological interest (grade C classification) https://frodsham.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Pond-trail-Final-Version.pdf and should be left undisturbed… https://frodsham.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/123.-Hob-Hey-Wood.pdf It houses rare butterflies and also facilitates the growth of various types of fungi.  Throughout people and children are learning about nature https://www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/blog/hob-hey-wood-friends-group-wonderful-way-learn-about-and-help-nature Any increase in employment land should not be at the expense of Green Belt or farm land unless the employment is within the rural sector or farming. Historical/archaeological impact. - FR1 - Question HI1 There are a number of important historical areas in the proposed FO1 and FO2 sites.  Bradley, immediately south of Thirlmere Close and all the way down and across Bradley Lane to Bradley Orchard, contains a number of important archaeological sites. Follow the course of the River Weaver to find its original Roman crossing. Kingsley is near and with an informed eye you will see the unique medieval field and hedgerow system of Bradley. Prized by generations of the informed who realise its cultural and historical significance to the Frodsham and wider community. In the proposed site of FO02 which covers the Bradley area of Frodsham there is Bradley Hill Iron Age Hill Fort, It is protected as a nationally important archaeological site and a scheduled monument   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_hill_fort   https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bradley+hill+fort,+Frodsham+WA6+7ET/@53.286607,-2.6947889,15z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x487ae342ee604ccb:0x949b615c5f1a7e10!8m2!3d53.286607!4d-2.692214!16s%2Fm%2F06w77pf?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduled_monument   FO03  - FR1 In the proposed site of FO02 which covers the Bradley area of Frodsham there is Bradley Hill Iron Age Hill Fort, It is protected as a nationally important archaeological site and a scheduled monument This land is farm land and produces produce that is sold in Frodsham.  Consequently the food miles is the absolute minimum.  The importance of food miles is well reported and the carbon footprint that ensues.  There is a ‘green agenda’ in Frodsham with the presence of the wind turbines and the proposed solar farm.  It seems counter intuitive to remove the green belt and farm land that produces food with virtually no transport carbon impact to build houses that are going to increase food miles of the produce sold in Frodsham and also increase the volume of traffic which will increase emissions.  In addition consideration needs to be given to the environmental impact related to wildlife habitat as indicated earlier. In addition, any plans for building on this land will need to consider the walking route of many children from Frodsham to Helsby High School, both from an emissions point of view but also bringing children into proximity with increased traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 2163

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Chang

I&O_2283
I have lived in Frodsham, on [redacted] for 39 years. I walk to Hob Hey Wood regularly and am appalled that this planning application for developers to build houses on Greenbelt is even being considered?!?!? This is an ancient woodland. Beautiful greenbelt area enjoyed for centuries by people. Full of wildlife and plants, ancient trees.  I have heard other people’s objections about strain on roads, schools, doctors, and other areas but I think the main objection here must be the application to build on GREENBELT when there is a huge new housing estate being built in Helsby .  At a time when the popularity of councils and Goverment is at its lowest there is an enormous level of  mistrust in this decision .  I urge you to reconsider this outrageous planning application and leave this beautiful ancient place in peace. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2165

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Katie Bleakley

I&O_2285
I whole heartedly reject the policies SS42, SS42 and SS43. The area in question should be protected for numerous reasons not least of the fact it is a fabulous community nature space. The destruction of this would be devastating to the wildlife in the area, we need to protect the environment instead of prioritising poorly build properties for financial gain. Do better when planning please! 

Comment

Representation ID: 2168

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Shaw

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2288
Objection to planning FRO01 &FRO02 I wish to object to current planning applications as above I object to policies SS41, SS42 & SS43 for the following reasons: Strain on infrastructure, doctors, dentists, schools & roads More gridlock on roads, the current situation cannot cope when there is a problem on the M56, it will get worse Increasing flood risk Worse air quality & more pollution Loss of green space

Comment

Representation ID: 2172

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Pemberton

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_2292
Since April 1 2025 I have had the responsibility of walking a transect for Butterfly Conservation and recording what butterflies are seen on a weekly fixed route through Hob Hey Wood and entering the results on the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS). The woods have so far responded with 21 species out of Cheshire's 27 including 2 nationally rare butterflies that are found in oak and elm trees, mostly on the outer edge of the woods which would be the most adversely affected areas. They are also on The Red List of protected species. This is ancient woodland and a Site of Biological interest as well as a corridor between other woodlands and important ecological sites and any break in the chain poses a real risk to species survival. It has been very evident that this is a very biodiverse woods with extremely rare flora and fauna and provides local residents a peaceful and safe environment to walk and play in and from a wellness perspective it is an important local facility. I suspect that any close development will destroy, at least in part, Hob Hey Woods as a local facility and will do undue damage to the local ecology. As a fellow of the RICS specialising in residential property I know very well how new house building sites work and the adverse impact that they have. In terms of the three areas identified on the plan FR001 and FR002 are totally unsuitable with FR003 perhaps suitable subject to the size of development and ease of access. Please note my comments of objection.

Comment

Representation ID: 2181

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Drapeur

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2301
I am writing to comment on the local plan in regards to Frodsham. 2 areas of green belt which have been identified as possible development sites (FRO01 and FRO02) I feel are totally unsuitable and I am firmly objecting. My reasons are as follows:  Increase in cars and traffic - more houses means more cars, and a lot of houses now have multiple vehicles. The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are already regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. It is even worse during additional roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. Add hundreds of extra vehicles from FRO01 and FRO02 and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk.  Significant negative effects on nature. The close proximity to Hob Hey Wood - a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat, wouldbe significantly affected by development so close. The increase in people/pets would inevitably lead to more litter, disturbance and killing of wildlife (cats are supreme predators), light and noise pollution, and antisocial behaviour to name a few. 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 FRO01 and FRO02 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  Flood risk - this is not a hypothetical objection, from my research this is a certainty if development goes ahead. 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 FRO01 and FRO02 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 will most likely 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 In summary, development in either FRO01 and FRO02 will have a significant negative impact on the residents not just in the immediate vicinity but throughout Frodsham, and also the wildlife in the woodland and surrounding areas, some of which is rare and endangered. I am happy to be contacted for further discussion or clarification, or even an in-person tour of our wonderful woodland that I and many of the residents in Frodsham (and also elsewhere in the North West region) love visiting and are keen to protect. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2191

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Crocker

I&O_2311
FRO02 and FRO01 are totally unsuitable. FRO02: Encourages increased car use: It is a distance from the town and up a steep hill, reducing walking access to the town and its facilities This will result in more car use, subsequent pollution increase and pressure on already overstretched parking. FRO01 and FRO02 are on Green Belt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. It would add pressure to already overloaded 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, much of which is used for agriculture, that is 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: 2248

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Naomi Anstice

SS 42
I&O_2368
Please do not build in FRO01 and FRO02 these are areas of greenbelt land which are essential to maintain an ancient woodland. The woods are a haven for wildlife as well as local people and help with mental health. The schools local to these suggestions are oversubscribed with waiting lists already. There is also the risk of flooding and having seen the local school flood on numerous occassions as well as local housing, I would not wish this on anyone. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2269

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Barry Kenworthy

FRO02/FRO01
I&O_2392
Both of the above areas would impinge upon public access areas such as Hob Hey wood,  public park and children's play area and surrounding rural footpaths and areas essential to wildlife have desperate need of wild areas. Housing developments such as those proposed in areas FRO01/FRO02 would entail access through Langdale way, an already congested road, especially at primary schhol drop off and collection when off road parking is virtually impossible. Increasing traffic up Langdale way would pose significant risks to both residents and road users. The area of the "Lakes" and Fluin lane are already highly congested at variouse times of day and regularly a bottle neck when M56 problems occur (regular events). To add the large numbers of additional vehicle traffic in this already over burdened road network would lead to a  breaking point     

Comment

Representation ID: 2292

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Jamie Hargrove

I&O_2421
I have recently been informed of your potential planning policies - specifically SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a local resident I am writing to inform you that I object to these policies. My objection is based upon, but no limited to the following points:- Increased Flood Risk More Gridlock on Frodsham Roads - The roads are already heavily congested as it is and in a really poor state. Further traffic would be even more detrimental to the roads. Strain on GPs, Dentists, and Schools - It is extremely hard work getting a doctors appointment as it stands. Schools are relatively full too. Destruction of Wildlife Corridors Damage to Ancient Woodland Worse Air Quality & Light Pollution Falling House Prices Loss of Community and Green Space  I have been advised to email yourselves regarding this objection.

Comment

Representation ID: 2295

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Janet McDonagh

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2424
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: 2298

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Lynn Howarth

I&O_2427
We wish to record our objections to policies, SS41,SS42,SS43. The proposed plans will cause massive strain on already stretched GP and dental services , plus schools. Current road access and infrastructure is already badly compromised and there is frequent gridlock in Frodsham when problems occur on the motorways or at the swing bridge. This impacts severely on the emergency services access  and on the health of Frodsham residents. Increased flood risk is also a major factor.

Comment

Representation ID: 2384

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Joanne O'Neill

I&O_2513
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed building of new homes on Green Belt land at Hob Hey Wood. I am objecting to policies SS41  SS42  SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 2387

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Leatherbarrow

I&O_2516
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed building of new homes on Green Belt land at Hob Hey Wood. I am objecting to policies SS41  SS42  SS43.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2393

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Zara Chang

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2522
Hob Hey Wood To all in charge of said planning. I'm writing to ask you, what is the need to destroy yet another green area, cherished for centuries by many families and by the community? I imagine corporate greed is the main motivator, and it's all about the money for you, but just for a change, wouldn't you rather take the high road? Aren't you all getting a bit bored of the predictable low level mindset of 'let's destroy something beautiful in order to line our pockets and scratch each other's backs'? I'm just throwing it out there, there's little trust in authorities like yourselves, and this 'plan' is absolutely disgraceful. To add, once again we're fighting for another Greenbelt protected area, the entire point of it being 'protected' is because of the ancient ground it's on, the nature that NEEDS the area to survive, or would you rather us lose our natural wildlife on top of polluting the air and clogging up the roads some more with more houses that only rich boomers can afford - friends of yours I'm guessing. Just for a change, surprise us fellow humans, do something good, stand up for the wildlife, the insects, the birds, the animals, and perhaps don't destroy the green heart of a community for the sake of greed? Just try to tap into your soul for a second, and consider the irreversible damage this would do.  I've not been able to get pregnant, it's been a struggle, but one day I hope I have a child, and I've always held close to my heart that one day my family and my mum and dad will walk from Townfield lane to hob hey, like I used to as a kid. I doubt you've read this to the end, but to irrierate again, money isn't everything, that may come as a shock, but it's not. Doing the right thing, however, is everything.

Comment

Representation ID: 2464

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Urban

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2613
I am writing with regards to regulation 18 - the plan to develop housing around Cheshire, specifically the plans in Frodsham. two of the proposed sites FRO01 and FRO02 which cover Hob Hey wood and the surrounding fields. I understand new houses need to be built to accommodate a growing population and most of the associated problems can be solved with good planning and compromise, however this isn't the case with Hob Hey as it is ancient woodland. It takes hundreds of years to develop and cannot be replaced by planting trees elsewhere. If it is removed or damaged it disappears permanently and so does the flora and fauna which needs ancient woodland to survive.  FRO01 and FR02 should be completely removed as possible sites for housing development.

Comment

Representation ID: 2495

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Shirley Jones

I&O_2647
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 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 2514

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Perry

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2667
Dear sirs , I am writing as a resident of Frodsham regarding the proposed building of new housing on the green belt around Frodsham I object in the strongest terms to the developments FRO01 and FRO02 . This land is completely unsuitable, for a start the infrastructure to provide access is completely unsuitable, the building would add greatly to the flooding risk , the fact that one of the nearby roads is called Watery Lane should be obvious to anyone The land is home to wildlife and provides important wildlife corridors. I live down Bradley lane and I can attest that when I come home at night the area is awash with badgers , foxes are frequently spotted and there is a plethora of bats flying around Additionally the proposed development is adjacent to the very important site of Hob Hey wood, a home again to lots of wildlife and trees and has a stream running right through Doubtless the air quality would be diminished helping nobody and certainly to the detriment of wildlife Bradley lane is also heavily used by walkers both local people trying to stay healthy and also hikers from outside, all this will be diminished by the proposed developments Removing the green belt buffer will forever destroy the integrity of Frodsham Do not build on green belt there has to be many brownfield sites that can be used The Othe proposed site FRO03 is the least damaging of the options but will still severely impact on local life and the towns character and integrity Surely planners must be aware of the regular congestion experienced on the roads in the town , particularly the A56 , constantly throughout the summer ,in particular gridlock is experienced, generally from the very regular issues on the M56 and weekends with the mass of holiday traffic for North Wales. Large development will only add substantially to the already unacceptable traffic situation Finally do not build on green belt it is totally unacceptable, it can never be reclaimed or replaced , precious greenery around towns is essential for the well being of all residents of Frodsham.

Comment

Representation ID: 2531

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Robinson

I&O_2684
Whilst accepting the need for more housing it should be on land that does not adversely affect present residential areas, GREEN BELTS (Ancient woodlands} historical or archealogical sites . Cheshire is known for it's foundation of Sandstone. Can it safely ecologically sustain the weight of the houses, cars, concrete roads/ paths and the disruption of providing sewage/ water pipes?????? Sites FR00l and FR002 are two parcels of GREEN BELT land that border Hob Hey Wood forming part of Frodshams only remaining rural buffer. Development of these areas increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, and destroys wildlife routes. What about "Brown" land ---several sites in Frodsham. Mersey Estuary effects Frodsham and Helsby due to its location, high tidal range,connection to Irish sea and inland river systems posing a a FLOOD risk. Encroaching housing developments threaten unique wildlife habitats, existing nature reserves and overall ecosystem. Being challenged by pollution and sewage contamination. Hob Hey Wood is home to many species, common, locally scarce and nationally rare, some only surviving in ancient woodland. The wood is a haven for wildlife and all people who enjoy being in nature, greatly benefitting MENTAL HEALTH and physical fitness for all age groups. The relaxed atmosphere reduces anxiety, depression and blood pressure,whilst fresh air helps the immune system. Provides a safe place to exercise and play. Tours and talks of the Wood are educational.

Comment

Representation ID: 2537

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Caple

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2690
I am writing to you to inform you of my objections to the proposed development of FRO01 and FRO02.  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. 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) 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, tonationally 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  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 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 ). 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 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. 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 –https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land Final Statement 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. I trust this message sufficiently conveys the reasons for my objections. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2541

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Jan Carberry

I&O_2694
I am writing to lodge a formal and unequivocal objection to the proposed development on Greenbelt land parcels FR001 and FR002, adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. This is not a suggestion or a concern—it is a resolute opposition to a plan that threatens the integrity of Frodsham’s last remaining rural buffer. Traffic Impact: Frodsham’s traffic infrastructure is already under severe strain. The A56 and surrounding roads are frequently gridlocked, particularly during M56 closures. The Weaver Viaduct handles over 112,000 vehicles daily, with numbers surging during incidents. Introducing hundreds of additional vehicles will compound congestion, delay emergency services, and endanger lives. Environmental Destruction: Hob Hey Wood is a designated Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, supporting thousands of species, including rare and endangered wildlife. It is a vital ecological and community asset. Development on FR001 and FR002 would obliterate wildlife corridors and irreparably damage this fragile ecosystem. Flood Risk: Surface water flooding is a growing threat, and Hob Hey Wood plays a critical role in flood mitigation. Its natural absorption capacity slows rainfall and protects homes. Removing this green infrastructure will accelerate runoff, overwhelm drainage systems, and increase flood risk—contrary to the council’s own Flood Risk Assessment. Strained Infrastructure: Frodsham’s public services are already stretched to breaking point. GP surgeries and schools are at capacity, and this proposal offers no credible plan or funding for additional services. The burden will fall on existing systems, further eroding service quality and accessibility. Air and Light Pollution: Frodsham lies within an Air Quality Management Area. Additional traffic will worsen pollution levels, while artificial lighting from the development will disrupt nocturnal wildlife and negatively impact residents’ health and wellbeing. Community Fragmentation: This development isolates new housing on the town’s periphery, undermining social cohesion and increasing the risk of antisocial behaviour. It fails to meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s requirement for integrated, community-supportive growth. Economic Harm: Residents choose Frodsham for its natural beauty and rural character. This development erodes those qualities, devalues property, and shifts the cost of environmental and social degradation onto the community—while developers profit. Greenbelt Protection: The Greenbelt is not a loophole—it is a legal and environmental safeguard. National policy is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless no alternatives exist. In this case, alternatives do exist, and this land must remain protected. Conclusion: This proposal represents reckless planning that threatens lives, ecosystems, infrastructure, and community wellbeing. It prioritises short-term profit over long-term sustainability and public interest. I urge the council to reject this development in its entirety.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2547

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Keith & Rosalind Murray

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2700
NO to  FRO01 FRO02 Green Belt land was designated to preserve the natural environment, preventing urban sprawl and to keep distinctiveness of rural and urban areas – this is outlined in National Planning Policy Framework guidelines. Which means no development of housing estates. The NPPF states that development in Green Belt areas is only allowed under ‘very special circumstances’. Building more homes does not meet this criteria and is not exceptional enough to justify encroachment on Green Belt land. The first proposed field just along from Townfield Lane and Grasmere Road does not have sufficient access as it is only a single track road. Any development would mean destruction of hedgerows.  The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 relates to diverse ranges or protected species of wildlife.  There would be destruction of wildlife corridors in all the proposed areas, which are right by Hob Hey Wood and a community orchard area. Any such developments would negatively impact on the character and landscape of this area. Loss of valuable farming land. There would be more pollution and noise levels, not to mention the impact on the traffic problems that Frodsham suffers on a daily basis. Increased traffic cannot be justified when there is daily congestion coming into the town particularly from the Sutton Weaver direction, at peak times. There is inadequate access to these proposed sites to cope with the increase of vehicles - the roads are in such poor condition that more traffic, and construction traffic would be destructive to the existing roads. There is a Townfield Lane Park down this lane and increased traffic could be dangerous to the local families who, at the moment, enjoy a rural walk down to the play area, knowing their children can bike down there and play in a safe environment. Safety of children should be paramount and there are not many areas in Frodsham where they can enjoy this freedom. There is inadequate infrastructure and amenities to deal with the increase of people. There would be added pressure on the local doctors and dentist surgeries and pressure on local schools. If all the objections are not taken into account, and these developments take place, then there is a precedent set and No Green Belt land will be safe. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2550

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Marianne McLellan

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2703
Local plan Issues and Options 10.3 Key issues " Green spaces are highly valued and should be protected, along with recreation, leisure and community uses. " FR001 and FR002 are primarily Green Belt land and many of the fields are directly adjacent to Hob Hey Wood, a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland. The fields covered by areas FR001 and FR002 are natural wildlife corridors leading down into Hob Hey Wood; there are several active badger setts in the fields behind Fairway.  The  removal of these corridors via development would significantly damage Hob Hey Wood’s wildlife and biodiversity. In addition the impact of development from light and air pollution would threaten the habitat; there are seven species of bat present in Hob Hey Wood, including rare Nathusius' pipistrelle, which would be adversely affected. Household pets would also pose an additional severe threat to the wildlife currently in the wood The development of major housing schemes has been seen to increase the risk of surface flooding, as it reduces the capacity of the land to absorb the extra run-off produced, increasing the downstream flow. In FR001 and FR002 this would lead to surface flooding down into Hob Hey Wood and onward into the river Weaver creating a significant onward pollution risk. This is not a hypothetical issue as the remediation work to alleviate sewerage floods required on Langdale Way is a relatively recent stark reminder of the onward cost of these developments. Planning proposal document, 10.3 Key issues: " Traffic congestion can be an issue in the town centre and on connecting roads, with a need to promote more cycling and walking in the town ." The normal level of traffic along the A56 through Frodsham is regularly disrupted when there are blockages on the M56, and the through road and access roads through Frodsham quickly become gridlocked. 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.  This traffic congestion would only be exacerbated by the construction of housing in FR001 and FR002. If FR001 and FR002 were to be developed there would also  be a significant increase in traffic down through Frodsham either on Church Street or Fluin Lane (the only two access points to the A56); these roads are already congested at busy times. Increased traffic down Church Street (which also provides access to the station) would have a knock on effect for local businesses, deterring residents from shopping there.  I  would advise the planning officers not to fall into the trap of assuming that new residents in areas FR001 and FR002 would walk or cycle into Frodsham for onward travel for three reasons: (i) although it may be easy to walk down into Frodsham, the walk/ride back up is steep and exhausting, even under favourable weather conditions, and therefore residents would soon want to use cars for the short commute; (ii) there is little parking available in Frodsham or at the station, before the addition of hundreds more vehicles; (iii) the current rail service either to Chester or Manchester is at capacity at rush hour times , and any rail operators would need significant incentives and lead times to significantly increase the volume of service required. It should be pointed out again that areas FR001 and FR002 are at the top of a steep hill, promoting cycling and walking would not be a solution for the elderly, the infirm or young families potentially living in these areas. The roads mentioned are also used by residents from neighbouring villages to access the motorway and beyond. Traffic for FR001 and FR002: The only two roads which offer a through route to FR001 and FR002 are Townfield Lane and Bradley Lane. Townfield lane becomes affectively a single lane road near the top with cars parked on one side along its length. Bradley Lane is starting to experience the same parking issues, and then quickly becomes a narrow country lane with negligible forward visibility. The idea that either of these two roads could absorb hundreds of extra cars at peak times is laughable, and neither has any scope for widening. And we still aren’t considering the construction traffic which would need access down these roads if FR001 and FR002 were to be developed. GP services: GP services are at capacity already. Appointments are hard to come by, and delays long. Without an accompanying plan to somehow improve these services , another 1000+ potential patients would not be accommodated. Schools: As for GP’s schools are already near capacity. Without investment in new educational facilities new residents would have nowhere to go. The current plan blithely assumes that if houses are built, employment would surely follow. From historical experience employment opportunities will have to be created first before new residents are to commit. In addition the development costs would be so significant, and any related infrastructure would need additional finance, that any developers could only make sufficient profit by building large expensive houses (not affordable homes). As there are currently nearer 250 existing houses on the market in Frodsham, the case for need has not been established For the above reasons I strongly object to the proposals relating to FR001 and FR002. and question the need for the scope of house building proposed for Frodsham. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2584

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Imogen Sykes

I&O_2737
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. It will prevent access to the outdoors by many people, destroy our peace and what makes Frodsham such a special place to live.  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: 2606

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Rodric Parker

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2759
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02 for housing development in the Regulation 18 Local Plan Issues and Options 2025. As a resident of Frodsham living near Hob Hey Wood, I have a direct and longstanding connection to the area and its environmental and community assets. My objection is grounded in planning law, national policy, and local evidence, and addresses the following key concerns: Green Belt Protection (SS41, SS42) Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt land. According to the  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless  exceptional circumstances  are clearly demonstrated. The proposed sites include important archaeological and ecological sites that would be significantly impacted. The Local Plan fails to provide sufficient justification that these sites are the only viable option for meeting housing needs. The presumption should remain against development unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances (SS41) The consultation document does not present compelling evidence that  brownfield sites  or  less sensitive non-Green Belt land  were thoroughly assessed and ruled out. The release of Green Belt land must be a  last resort , and the council has not met the legal threshold required to override Green Belt protections. Infrastructure Strain (SS47) The proposed development would place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure: The  A56 corridor  is already congested, and traffic gridlock occurs frequently when the  M56 is disrupted . The Sutton Weaver swing bridge is a particular bottleneck and there are no nearby alternatives for entering Frodsham from the east. Local GP practices and schools  are at or near full capacity. No guaranteed infrastructure upgrades or mitigation measures are proposed to support the scale of development envisaged. The local train service is inadequate. I work in Manchester and taking the train takes twice as long as driving. Building significant developments near train stations will have little impact on alleviating infrastructure strain. Question: What consideration has been given to the necessary transport infrastructure that will have to be developed to support the plans? Environmental Sensitivity (SS43) Sites FRO01 and FRO02 border  Hob Hey Wood , a designated  Site of Biological Importance  and ancient woodland. These areas serve as vital  wildlife corridors  and  buffer zones , supporting biodiversity and ecological resilience. The Local Plan lacks robust environmental assessments and fails to provide enforceable ecological protections. Every evening bats fly outside our living room window. Building adjacent to Hob Hey Wood is likely to lead to impact the lives of the bats. Bats are protected under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. There are also badgers setts in the fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Badger setts are protected under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act Question: What investigations are planned into the environmental impact of the plans and the likely contravening species protection in law? Flood Risk The proposed sites lie within Frodsham’s  natural water absorption zone . There is historical evidence of  flooding and sewerage issues , particularly in areas like  Langdale Way . Development on permeable land will increase flood risk downstream, contradicting the council’s own  Flood Risk Strategy  and national planning guidance. In addition, it is known that there are underground streams running under fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Question: What consideration has been given to the flood risk and impact of underground streams including the likely costs of any mitigations? Community Impact and Wellbeing Loss of green space negatively affects  public health ,  mental wellbeing , and  community cohesion . These sites are used for walking, recreation, and social interaction, contributing to Frodsham’s identity and quality of life. The proposal conflicts with NPPF objectives to promote  healthy and inclusive communities . Precedent and Policy Breach Permitting development on these Green Belt sites sets a dangerous precedent for future erosion of protected land. The proposal conflicts with: National Green Belt policy Local sustainability and environmental objectives The council’s statutory duty to protect designated land unless  clear, transparent, and justified alternatives  are not possible—which is not demonstrated here. Final Position I strongly object to any development on sites FRO01 and FRO02. These sites must be  fully removed  from the Local Plan Review. The council must uphold its legal and ethical responsibility to protect Green Belt land and prioritise sustainable, community-led development. Thank you for considering my objection. I trust that the council will act in accordance with national policy and local interest by rejecting these proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 2607

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqueline Parker

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2760
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02 for housing development in the Regulation 18 Local Plan Issues and Options 2025. As a resident of Frodsham living near Hob Hey Wood, I have a direct and longstanding connection to the area and its environmental and community assets. My objection is grounded in planning law, national policy, and local evidence, and addresses the following key concerns: Green Belt Protection (SS41, SS42) Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt land. According to the  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless  exceptional circumstances  are clearly demonstrated. The proposed sites include important archaeological and ecological sites that would be significantly impacted. The Local Plan fails to provide sufficient justification that these sites are the only viable option for meeting housing needs. The presumption should remain against development unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances (SS41) The consultation document does not present compelling evidence that  brownfield sites  or  less sensitive non-Green Belt land  were thoroughly assessed and ruled out. The release of Green Belt land must be a  last resort , and the council has not met the legal threshold required to override Green Belt protections. Infrastructure Strain (SS47) The proposed development would place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure: The  A56 corridor  is already congested, and traffic gridlock occurs frequently when the  M56 is disrupted . The Sutton Weaver swing bridge is a particular bottleneck and there are no nearby alternatives for entering Frodsham from the east. Local GP practices and schools  are at or near full capacity. No guaranteed infrastructure upgrades or mitigation measures are proposed to support the scale of development envisaged. The local train service is inadequate. I work in Manchester and taking the train takes twice as long as driving. Building significant developments near train stations will have little impact on alleviating infrastructure strain. Question: What consideration has been given to the necessary transport infrastructure that will have to be developed to support the plans? Environmental Sensitivity (SS43) Sites FRO01 and FRO02 border  Hob Hey Wood , a designated  Site of Biological Importance  and ancient woodland. These areas serve as vital  wildlife corridors  and  buffer zones , supporting biodiversity and ecological resilience. The Local Plan lacks robust environmental assessments and fails to provide enforceable ecological protections. Every evening bats fly outside our living room window. Building adjacent to Hob Hey Wood is likely to lead to impact the lives of the bats. Bats are protected under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. There are also badgers setts in the fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Badger setts are protected under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act Question: What investigations are planned into the environmental impact of the plans and the likely contravening species protection in law? Flood Risk The proposed sites lie within Frodsham’s  natural water absorption zone . There is historical evidence of  flooding and sewerage issues , particularly in areas like  Langdale Way . Development on permeable land will increase flood risk downstream, contradicting the council’s own  Flood Risk Strategy  and national planning guidance. In addition, it is known that there are underground streams running under fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Question: What consideration has been given to the flood risk and impact of underground streams including the likely costs of any mitigations? Community Impact and Wellbeing Loss of green space negatively affects  public health ,  mental wellbeing , and  community cohesion . These sites are used for walking, recreation, and social interaction, contributing to Frodsham’s identity and quality of life. The proposal conflicts with NPPF objectives to promote  healthy and inclusive communities . Precedent and Policy Breach Permitting development on these Green Belt sites sets a dangerous precedent for future erosion of protected land. The proposal conflicts with: National Green Belt policy Local sustainability and environmental objectives The council’s statutory duty to protect designated land unless  clear, transparent, and justified alternatives  are not possible—which is not demonstrated here. Final Position I strongly object to any development on sites FRO01 and FRO02. These sites must be  fully removed  from the Local Plan Review. The council must uphold its legal and ethical responsibility to protect Green Belt land and prioritise sustainable, community-led development. Thank you for considering my objection. I trust that the council will act in accordance with national policy and local interest by rejecting these proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 2608

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Isobel Parker

I&O_2761
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02 for housing development in the Regulation 18 Local Plan Issues and Options 2025. As a resident of Frodsham living near Hob Hey Wood, I have a direct and longstanding connection to the area and its environmental and community assets. My objection is grounded in planning law, national policy, and local evidence, and addresses the following key concerns: Green Belt Protection (SS41, SS42) Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt land. According to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances  are clearly demonstrated. The proposed sites include important archaeological and ecological sites that would be significantly impacted. The Local Plan fails to provide sufficient justification that these sites are the only viable option for meeting housing needs. The presumption should remain against development unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances (SS41) The consultation document does not present compelling evidence that brownfield sites  or less sensitive non-Green Belt land  were thoroughly assessed and ruled out. The release of Green Belt land must be a last resort , and the council has not met the legal threshold required to override Green Belt protections. Infrastructure Strain (SS47) The proposed development would place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure: The A56 corridor  is already congested, and traffic gridlock occurs frequently when the M56 is disrupted . The Sutton Weaver swing bridge is a particular bottleneck and there are no nearby alternatives for entering Frodsham from the east. Local GP practices and schools  are at or near full capacity. No guaranteed infrastructure upgrades or mitigation measures are proposed to support the scale of development envisaged. The local train service is inadequate. I work in Manchester and taking the train takes twice as long as driving. Building significant developments near train stations will have little impact on alleviating infrastructure strain. Question:  What consideration has been given to the necessary transport infrastructure that will have to be developed to support the plans? Environmental Sensitivity (SS43) Sites FRO01 and FRO02 border Hob Hey Wood , a designated Site of Biological Importance  and ancient woodland. These areas serve as vital wildlife corridors  and buffer zones , supporting biodiversity and ecological resilience. The Local Plan lacks robust environmental assessments and fails to provide enforceable ecological protections. Every evening bats fly outside our living room window. Building adjacent to Hob Hey Wood is likely to lead to impact the lives of the bats. Bats are protected under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. There are also badgers setts in the fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Badger setts are protected under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act Question: What investigations are planned into the environmental impact of the plans and the likely contravening species protection in law? Flood Risk The proposed sites lie within Frodsham’s natural water absorption zone . There is historical evidence of flooding and sewerage issues , particularly in areas like Langdale Way . Development on permeable land will increase flood risk downstream, contradicting the council’s own Flood Risk Strategy  and national planning guidance. In addition, it is known that there are underground streams running under fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Question:  What consideration has been given to the flood risk and impact of underground streams including the likely costs of any mitigations? Community Impact and Wellbeing Loss of green space negatively affects public health , mental wellbeing , and community cohesion . These sites are used for walking, recreation, and social interaction, contributing to Frodsham’s identity and quality of life. The proposal conflicts with NPPF objectives to promote healthy and inclusive communities . Precedent and Policy Breach Permitting development on these Green Belt sites sets a dangerous precedent for future erosion of protected land. The proposal conflicts with: National Green Belt policy Local sustainability and environmental objectives The council’s statutory duty to protect designated land unless clear, transparent, and justified alternatives  are not possible—which is not demonstrated here. Final Position I strongly object to any development on sites FRO01 and FRO02. These sites must be fully removed  from the Local Plan Review. The council must uphold its legal and ethical responsibility to protect Green Belt land and prioritise sustainable, community-led development. Thank you for considering my objection. I trust that the council will act in accordance with national policy and local interest by rejecting these proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 2609

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Parker

I&O_2762
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02 for housing development in the Regulation 18 Local Plan Issues and Options 2025. As a resident of Frodsham living near Hob Hey Wood, I have a direct and longstanding connection to the area and its environmental and community assets. My objection is grounded in planning law, national policy, and local evidence, and addresses the following key concerns: Green Belt Protection (SS41, SS42) Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt land. According to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances  are clearly demonstrated. The proposed sites include important archaeological and ecological sites that would be significantly impacted. The Local Plan fails to provide sufficient justification that these sites are the only viable option for meeting housing needs. The presumption should remain against development unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances (SS41) The consultation document does not present compelling evidence that brownfield sites  or less sensitive non-Green Belt land  were thoroughly assessed and ruled out. The release of Green Belt land must be a last resort , and the council has not met the legal threshold required to override Green Belt protections. Infrastructure Strain (SS47) The proposed development would place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure: The A56 corridor  is already congested, and traffic gridlock occurs frequently when the M56 is disrupted . The Sutton Weaver swing bridge is a particular bottleneck and there are no nearby alternatives for entering Frodsham from the east. Local GP practices and schools  are at or near full capacity. No guaranteed infrastructure upgrades or mitigation measures are proposed to support the scale of development envisaged. The local train service is inadequate. I work in Wrexham and it takes twice as long to travel by train than it does to drive. Building significant developments near train stations will have little impact on alleviating infrastructure strain. Question:  What consideration has been given to the necessary transport infrastructure that will have to be developed to support the plans? Environmental Sensitivity (SS43) Sites FRO01 and FRO02 border Hob Hey Wood , a designated Site of Biological Importance  and ancient woodland. These areas serve as vital wildlife corridors  and buffer zones , supporting biodiversity and ecological resilience. The Local Plan lacks robust environmental assessments and fails to provide enforceable ecological protections. Every evening bats fly outside our living room window. Building adjacent to Hob Hey Wood is likely to lead to impact the lives of the bats. Bats are protected under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. There are also badgers setts in the fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Badger setts are protected under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act Question: What investigations are planned into the environmental impact of the plans and the likely contravening species protection in law? Flood Risk The proposed sites lie within Frodsham’s natural water absorption zone . There is historical evidence of flooding and sewerage issues , particularly in areas like Langdale Way . Development on permeable land will increase flood risk downstream, contradicting the council’s own Flood Risk Strategy  and national planning guidance. In addition, it is known that there are underground streams running under fields adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. Question:  What consideration has been given to the flood risk and impact of underground streams including the likely costs of any mitigations? Community Impact and Wellbeing Loss of green space negatively affects public health , mental wellbeing , and community cohesion . These sites are used for walking, recreation, and social interaction, contributing to Frodsham’s identity and quality of life. The proposal conflicts with NPPF objectives to promote healthy and inclusive communities . Precedent and Policy Breach Permitting development on these Green Belt sites sets a dangerous precedent for future erosion of protected land. The proposal conflicts with: National Green Belt policy Local sustainability and environmental objectives The council’s statutory duty to protect designated land unless clear, transparent, and justified alternatives  are not possible—which is not demonstrated here. Final Position I strongly object to any development on sites FRO01 and FRO02. These sites must be fully removed  from the Local Plan Review. The council must uphold its legal and ethical responsibility to protect Green Belt land and prioritise sustainable, community-led development. Thank you for considering my objection. I trust that the council will act in accordance with national policy and local interest by rejecting these proposals.