Comment

Representation ID: 338

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

CH 1
I&O_369
Question CH 2 We query the potential use of the Dale Barracks for housing because of its remoteness from local facilities

Comment

Representation ID: 458

Received: 08/07/2025

Respondent: Professor & Mrs Andrew & Jackie Thomas

I&O_541
Thank You for opening up the Councils plans and options under consideration for potential adaptions / variations to and enhancements of the Local Plan. [We] have some comments specifically in relation to the Old Mollington Golf Course site and surrounding area, which we would like to feed into the consultation. This site has very limited exisiting consent for development being for a small number of houses adjacent to the Mollington Village. Arguably this is  suitable and appropriate in terms of location and scale, being almost “in fill” around the exisiting vehicular entry / access point to the highway. There is an old consent in respect of the old Club house and outbuildings and their conversion to site relevant facility (leisure / community and parking) and also as consideration for a dwelling in its own integrity. This site ( whole Golf course) is a green lung within greenbelt, and defining the boundaries thereof – therefore any proposed development is likely to infringe and materially reduce and potentially negatively impact of the whole Green belt area. The hospital site adjacent (a critical piece of  CWAC and Chesters community infrastructure) is land bound by highways, adjacencies and particularly areas of the green belt and the canl. The hospital site needs expansion and development to be fit for purpose for the future capacity of the city, but it is already teetering on the edge of their density capability – whilst being in critical need to improve and expand their capacity and facilities. The hospital has already created a wetland area, which bounds onto this site of the Old Golf Course – improving their BNG / Density credentials – there is scope for this to be enabled further in this review – by enabling, or not restricting them from, expanding the wetland / Biodiversity area and thereby enable further development on the hospital site - enhancing the community facilities at the hospital, without there being avoidable “creep” of the  actual  hospital site. The old golf course club house and adjacent service buildings providing a number of roosts of actively breeding barn owls, as is the adjacent oak tree to the club house. Evidenced  through monitoring by the Barn Owl trust for the area. The area of the golf course around the club house and bounding onto the Parkgate Road and sub station and the canal are where those owls hunts for food. This year there have been 2 further breeding Roosts with chicks in at  Townfield lane within the Mollington grange development (box is adjacent to the Golf Course boundary (less than 20 meters). Development will seriously negatively impact of all of the Owl residents. Barn Owls are recognised in the uk as Category 1 protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act  prohibiting negative actions to or against them and their habitat. There are key time windows of increased constraint, which prohibit adjacent building and construction activities – these can be from March to October. The canal boundary itself is where the Hospitals parkland wetland area extends too, and therefore is adjacent to, the old Mollington Golf course site – development in this area would restrict and  impinge on the potential for expansion of the wetland / green lung for the future. Over recent years the Parkgate road in this vicinity has been subject to multiple water ingress and serious flooding  - resulting in out of hours and expensive emergency 24 hour actions to divert traffic and  attempt to reduce risk of hazard to the residents and travelling public. Any and all development of the Golf Course ( by height and run off a major contributor to the  water flow and the floods) will increase the risks and likelihood of future floods, exacerbated by climate change. Any and all new dwellings on the site could be blighted by the history of flooding as above, but their creation and  essential foundations , ground works, access roads and  new drainage loads would only exacerbate a serious problem on Parkgate Road and surrounding area and the residents. There are a number of lakes within the  old golf course which are inhabited by multiple wild birds and fowl, with seasonality peaks and troughs.  These lakes left  act as Interceptor / balancing ponds to mitigate the rate and extent of run off from the golf Course ( the source of flooding on Parkgate road) and removal, reduction or compromise of these arising from any form of housing development  would certainly exacerbate the flooding  risks and risks to neighbours and  travelling public immediately. Within our own land adjacent to the Golf Course we have at our own expense varied our own land holdings to create interceptor ponds  / balancing drainage which has reduced water  draining onto the  Parkgate Road at our boundary to the highway and reducing risk to the travelling public, as well as enhancing the environmental habitat where now there are breeding ducks and moorhens, wood peckers and ground that is hunted by barn owls. We hope that the above provides you with useful details and experience of people who understand the site and its dynamics from lived experience 24/7 and 365 days per year, and positively  contributes to the  considerations in respect of this site in particular.

Comment

Representation ID: 546

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Historic England

I&O_629
Any option should be accompanied by a robust assessment of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting to inform the best solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 981

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Johnson

I&O_1085
I advocate for Plan option 1 which does not allow encroachment on the green belt. This will ensure that the character of the local area/villages is maintained, the enviornment and biodiversity of the area is maintained and will ensure a clear divide between Chester and the local villages is maintained. I do not believe that the area highlighted for building/growth within the CH2 postcode is suitable for further growth given the current road network an restrictions on it an example of which being the A56 through Mickle Trafford which is an already busy A road passing through an area of high pedestrian traffic. Any development would add further traffic to this and similar roads making them more dangerous and altering the character of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1237

Received: 04/08/2025

Respondent: Gary O'Reilly

CH 2
I&O_1342
Good afternoon. My wife and I wholeheartedly oppose any consideration of a change of use for development for Site Reference 1970 during the Local Plan Consultations. Not only is the consideration to build on the greenbelt outrageous, but the locality makes little to no sense, and the surrounding infrastructure is insufficient at the best of times. We residents have already had to endure 4 years of disruption during the build of the Upton Dene estate.  Please keep me updated with any progress. Warm regards Gary & Sally O'Reilly

Comment

Representation ID: 1416

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Les Smith

I&O_1521
The provision of a Park N Ride at the A56 exit of the M53 would also improve the traffic on the A56 Hoole Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 1468

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Gaynor Downie

I&O_1573
I wish the areas to Demage Lane and at the back of Daleside to be retained as greenbelt or not developed upon. See comments above relating to congestion, impact to services, noise and pollution. [additional comments received by email below] I wish to object to the proposal in the local plan to potentially develop the area off Demage Lane and behind Daleside. I would like this to be retained as greenbelt. The impact of development could seriously affect the local  residents by the following: Increase in population Congestion Pollution Noise Impact to already stretched services like GP surgeries, Veterinary establishments and The Countess of Chester Hospital. The Countess is already struggling with poor ratings. Adding increased population would burden the provision even more. The zoo traffic causes congestion on most days to Long Lane, with individuals parking on Demage Lane at times adding to driving difficulty. Damage Lane is also a cut through for the hospital so the transport networks are already at their fill. Adding an increased population through housing developments would bring all of the above and I feel there are better sites available for the expansion. Residents of Daleside are seriously sandwiched between congestion from the zoo and that of the hospital.

Comment

Representation ID: 2466

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2615
All the obvious sites have been identified

Comment

Representation ID: 3653

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3835
No

Comment

Representation ID: 3794

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Toby Hazlehurst

I&O_3976
Don't build any new houses in and around Chester. It is already too busy. We don't have enough roads, schools, healthcare etc etc. The traffic is already a nightmare. I object to any new housing development. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3911

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Proctor

I&O_4093
If we're being ambitious should Chester & Deeside Transport Scheme (CDTS) be revived to provide better connections to key emplyment sites around the city, and if possible include access to Countess of Chester Health Park, a hige generator of traffic. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4215

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4444
Must include provision of services and retail to the east of the city to cater for increased population in rural settlements (3,000 to 4,000 extra dwellings depending on strategic option chosen). Most of the superstores are to the west of Chester, meaning that customers driving from the Cheshire rural areas need to drive to Chester and cross the city, creating more traffic, pollution and lost time.

Comment

Representation ID: 5113

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5477
It needs to include significant expansion for housing northwards and eastwards from existing boundaries, along transport corridors.  That would not be detrimental to those values within.

Comment

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5852
Yes, I have several concerns about the suggested allocations and sites in Chester. Dale Barracks. While its closure does present an opportunity for redevelopment, any allocation here must be carefully managed and shaped around community needs. There is a risk it could become another high-density housing estate with little regard for local services. If it is redeveloped, it should prioritise genuinely affordable homes for local families, the retention of green space, and the provision of new facilities such as GP capacity, schools and safe walking/cycling routes. The Upton Neighbourhood Plan must be respected, and local residents must have a strong say in the site’s future. Chester Business Quarter. The slow delivery of office space shows there is limited demand for the scale of development previously allocated. It makes no sense to persist with unrealistic targets that may leave sites underused. Flexibility is needed – for example, allowing mixed-use redevelopment that still retains some employment provision but also introduces housing and community space. Chester Business Park. This remains an important employment site and should be safeguarded as such. Allowing residential development here would not only undermine employment land supply but would also conflict with Green Belt policy. Any flexibility should only be for uses that support employment and the wider economy, not housing. Northgate Phase 2. If this moves forward, it must avoid becoming a purely residential-led scheme that erodes the balance of uses in the city centre. Cultural, leisure and community uses must remain central to keep Chester vibrant and attractive for both residents and visitors. Chester City Gateway. While regeneration of this area is welcome in principle, it should not come at the cost of displacing existing communities or forcing through high-density housing without adequate infrastructure. Proposals must guarantee safe, sustainable transport connections and not add further strain to roads that are already at breaking point. Overall, these allocations highlight a consistent issue: housing delivery is being pushed ahead of essential services and infrastructure. Each site must be assessed not just for its development capacity but for whether it can realistically support healthy, safe and sustainable communities without undermining Chester’s historic character and liveability.

Comment

Representation ID: 5651

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: DERWENT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Agent: ATP

I&O_6023
We would encourage that the Regulation 19 iteration of the Local Plan itemises the various sites identified to be suitable for allocation in the Local Plan (perhaps with a lower threshold to be adopted such as 10 for a major development). This should include sites such as ID1182 which is comprised of the Total Fitness unit accessed off Liverpool Road to the north of the city centre. This is an eminently suitable brownfield site close to public transport nodes and employment uses such as the hospital and university. We would also note that the identified yield for that site (32) would reflect a family housing typology whereas the site (by virtue of topography and existing volume and massing) could straightforwardly accommodate an apartment-led typology and a yield of circa 100 units. Evidence has previously been provided in terms of feasibility layouts which would align to these statements.

Comment

Representation ID: 6378

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_6791
I am not as familiar with Chester as i was 30 years ago when I lived there but the amenity value is high and developments such as the Greenway are well used by cyclists from the whole borough. We would consider retiring and moving to Chester from a rural area but there seems a shortage of retirement housing that is not blocks of flats with no outside space and the retirement home type developments are very expensive per bedroom and have high ongoing ground rents. An alternative model needs to be developed for retirees to move into that frees up bedrooms in family houses but is not a money tree for developers. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7905

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8394
No

Comment

Representation ID: 8120

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8609
No

Comment

Representation ID: 8293

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8782
No

Comment

Representation ID: 8521

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9012
No

Comment

Representation ID: 8698

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9190
No

Comment

Representation ID: 8863

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9356
No

Comment

Representation ID: 8985

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9478
No

Comment

Representation ID: 9160

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9653
We agree with the approach to updating employment allocations to support additional growth within Chester. This should be balanced with suitable housing allocations and urban extensions, such as allocation of the Mannings Lane site detailed within this report.

Comment

Representation ID: 9259

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9752
No

Comment

Representation ID: 9486

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9981
No

Comment

Representation ID: 9606

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10102
No

Comment

Representation ID: 9719

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10215
No

Comment

Representation ID: 9841

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10338
No

Comment

Representation ID: 10244

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Avison Young

LAA ref 1403
I&O_10741
CH1 sets out the overall vision for Chester and its function as a city centre, which is generally supported by the DIO. However, with reference to Dale Barracks, it is noted that the DIO have confirmed that it will become surplus to requirements by 2030 and as such, it is our position that the draft approach to Policy CH1 should be amended to ensure that the site is identified for removal from the Green Belt and reallocated for residential led development. As set out in our response to Question SS23, the site is located in a highly sustainable location and is a deliverable site to deliver much needed housing on a PDL site. Whilst it is noted that Dale Barracks is one of several sites identified within the Upton Triangle (CH01), for delivery purposes, it would be necessary for the site to have its own policy allocation.