Comment

Representation ID: 48

Received: 07/07/2025

Respondent: Chris Jackson

I&O_51
NE 1  If this reflects the needs of their Neighbourhood Plan then it should be acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 556

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Historic England

I&O_639
Local Plan policies should seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting including improving character and identity of places. Historic England would welcome the opportunity to work with you to ensure that any policy approaches are robust and reflect the designation and needs of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1134

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Smith

I&O_1239
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1762

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Alex Pickard

NEP01
I&O_1872
I feel NEP01 is an inappropriate location for further development, for the following reasons:  - increased urban sprawl of Neston & parkgate - enclosing the Park Fields recreation area, a Green Flag Community Award site of significant value to the area - Increased pressure on local roads, including Leighton Road and Boathouse Lane 

Comment

Representation ID: 2045

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Gregory Crook

I&O_2165
In regard to the plans for the surrounding areas of Parkgate and Neston I do not agree with the proposed plans. Parkgate is the only coastal village in Cheshire with a unique character and history.  It’s a historic village and tourist attraction which will be forever damaged. There is, for instance, no mention of either the Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration.   Any proposed development will impact the visual coherence of the area, including its architectural style, historical significance and overall character. It will also result in a threat to the heritage value of the area.   The green belt is an important resource for wildlife, mitigating climate change and managing water from rainfall. We source a lot of our food from a farm on the greenbelt which you propose to build on.  The construction would make the Chester high road which is already busy much worse, pollution levels in the area would be greatly increased and would effect the wildlife of the Dee estuary. The surtounding green belt is not only home to farm animals but also the natural wildlife and we have seen an increase in apex predator birds over recent years because of it. The area lies within a floodplain and is at risk of environmental degradation. The lower part of the area (adjacent to the marsh) already experiences flooding issues during winter months – any further disturbance to ground water that drains to that area is only likely to increase flood risks. If you concrete over the green belt up the hill the water rather than soaking into the ground will run down hill.  There would have to be massive investment made for increased levels of sewerage: the River Dee already has above average levels of sewerage dumped into the river from Quayside, and it is well documented that the sewerage treatment works on the Old Quay are at over capacity.  I have witnessed first hand the overspill sewage offshore the Wirral peninsula and it has been well documented in the press and fines have been levied against water companies. We do not want to destroy the Dee estuary.  There is already insufficient provision for parking or public transportation. Despite Neston having its own train station, the service is very limited in terms of direct destinations and the surrounding infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic or park and ride facilities. There are limited opportunities for local employment on the Clayhill industrial Estate, but there is currently no train service to Deeside Industrial Park or Cheshire Oaks which are large local employers. Any large-scale development will have a detrimental impact on local amenities and services. Neston High School and the local primary schools are already at maximum capacity. There will be an increased strain on infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, and other public services. Any development will affect the availability of essential amenities, such as shops, parks, or recreational spaces . It is almost impossible to get an appointment with a GP as it is. Often requiring queuing outside the door at 07:30am. Please don’t destroy the area with these building plans. Once it’s lost it’s gone forever. Do we really want to be the generation that let this happen.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2346

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2475
While I support the protection of Neston and Parkgate’s character, green spaces, and infrastructure, I do not support further housing growth in surrounding Green Belt/green fields. The existing road network, parking provision, and local services are already under pressure, particularly during term time due to students and visitors. Additional housing, including new homes for students, would exacerbate congestion, limit access for residents, and place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure. Instead, the Local Plan should prioritise: Protection of existing green fields, green belt and open spaces. Maintaining the character, appearance, and heritage of Willaston, hooton, parkgate. Supporting local amenities, tourism, and the town centre without increasing population density beyond current levels.

Comment

Representation ID: 2368

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: L M

I&O_2497
Strongly oppose building on green belt land when there is empty property in the town that could be used to build housing.. need to look at compulsory purchase of empty property and brownfield sites instead 

Comment

Representation ID: 2461

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Daniel Barnett

NP 1
I&O_2592
Overall, I do not support the NP 1 approach for Neston and Parkgate: it disregards the area’s character and conservation areas threatens heritage and the green belt reduces farmland and local food production increases sewerage overflow risks worsens traffic and public transport limitations overloads schools, healthcare, and other local amenities fails to consider the use of brownfield sites fails to consider or propose a strategy for redeveloping derelect sites  Elements of the approach that I support include: protecting and enhancing the network of accessible green and open spaces managing the potential impact on designated habitats sites improving transport infrastructure by creating a network of safe walking and cycling connections throughout the area  protecting existing car parks from development and extended where possible within and adjacent to Parkgate Parade

Comment

Representation ID: 2676

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Anne Salmon

NE1
I&O_2829
I agree

Comment

Representation ID: 2875

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Lynn Turnbull

I&O_3046
I do not agree with the amount of Affordable Housing being suggested. It is quite clear that the Government suggests only 10% or just above of affordable housing, should be included in any new build estates.  It appears that there is far more, nearer to 40% and this would destroy the character of the Neston and Parkgate area.  Amend size of affordable housing to comply with government guide lines.

Comment

Representation ID: 2886

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Noble

Area ref: NEP01
I&O_3060
I do not agree. There is no mention of either the Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration. Any proposed development will impact the visual coherence of the area, including its architectural style, historical significance and overall character. It will also result in a threat to the heritage value of the area.  Additionally, the preservation of the Green Belt should be considered an overriding priority. Depending on which Spatial strategy options is accepted, the proposals for a significant number of new houses to be built around the area would be bound to alter the ‘rural’ nature of the area and to impact on the relevant townscapes. Equally the approach does not take into account the impact of any developments on the environment and pollution, transportation, and on local amenities and services. Impact on the environment The area lies within a floodplain and is at risk of environmental degradation. The lower part of the area (adjacent to the marsh) already experiences flooding issues during winter months – any further disturbance to ground water that drains to that area is only likely to increase flood risks.  There would have to be massive investment made for increased levels of sewerage: the River Dee already has above average levels of sewerage dumped into the river from Quayside, and it is well documented that the sewerage treatment works on the Old Quay (upstream of Parkgate) are at over capacity. Impact on traffic and transportation Any proposed development will increase congestion and affect local road networks (roads which are at present not well maintained), and will create safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. The Parade in Parkgate is already very congested and Leighton Road is not suitable to take any more traffic. There is already insufficient provision for parking or public transportation. Despite Neston having its own train station, the service is very limited in terms of direct destinations and the surrounding infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic or park and ride facilities. There are limited opportunities for local employment on the Clayhill industrial Estate, but there is currently no train service to Deeside Industrial Park or Cheshire Oaks which are large local employers. Impact on local amenities and services Any large-scale development will have a detrimental impact on local amenities and services. Neston High School and the local primary schools are already at maximum capacity. There will be an increased strain on infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, and other public services. Any development will affect the availability of essential amenities, such as shops, parks, or recreational spaces .

Comment

Representation ID: 2890

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Frostick

NP 1 ‘Neston and Parkgate’
I&O_3064
We do not agree.  The approach does not take into account the individual characteristics of the Neston and Parkgate area. There is, for instance, no mention of either the Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration.   Any proposed development will impact the visual coherence of the area, including its architectural style, historical significance and overall character. It will also result in a threat to the heritage value of the area.  The Parkgate Society regards preservation of the Green Belt as an overriding priority and under no circumstances would we be in agreement to development on the greenbelt in the local area.  Depending on which Spatial strategy options is accepted, the proposals for a significant number of new houses to be built around the area would be bound to alter the ‘rural’ nature of the area and to impact on the relevant townscapes. Equally the approach does not take into account the impact of any developments on the environment and pollution, transportation, and on local amenities and services. Impact on the environment The area lies within a floodplain and is at risk of environmental degradation. The lower part of the area (adjacent to the marsh) already experiences flooding issues during winter months – any further disturbance to ground water that drains to that area is only likely to increase flood risks.  There would have to be massive investment made for increased levels of sewerage: the River Dee already has above average levels of sewerage dumped into the river from Quayside, and it is well documented that the sewerage treatment works on the Old Quay (upstream of Parkgate) are at over capacity. Impact on traffic and transportation Any proposed development will increase congestion and affect local road networks (roads which are at present not well maintained), and will create safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. The Parade in Parkgate is already very congested and Leighton Road is not suitable to take any more traffic. There is already insufficient provision for parking or public transportation. Despite Neston having its own train station, the service is very limited in terms of direct destinations and the surrounding infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic or park and ride facilities. There are limited opportunities for local employment on the Clayhill industrial Estate, but there is currently no train service to Deeside Industrial Park or Cheshire Oaks which are large local employers. Impact on local amenities and services Any large-scale development will have a detrimental impact on local amenities and services. Neston High School and the local primary schools are already at maximum capacity. There will be an increased strain on infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, and other public services. Any development will affect the availability of essential amenities, such as shops, parks, or recreational spaces .  

Comment

Representation ID: 3100

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: National Highways

I&O_3274
Suggested Policy Approach The geographic location of Neston and Parkgate demonstrates that proposed development in the area will likely be of smaller scale, reflective of the location within the settlement hierarchy. It is noted that public transport will be key to future modal shift within the settlement boundary. Policy NP1: Neston and Parkgate While the policy focuses on local development, any significant growth in Neston and Parkgate, particularly involving tourism to the area, may increase traffic demand on the SRN, especially routes connecting to the M53 (Junctions 4 and 5). We recommend that early engagement with National Highways will be essential to assess and mitigate potential impacts on SRN capacity and safety.

Comment

Representation ID: 3319

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3493
While I support the protection of Neston and Parkgate’s character, green spaces, and infrastructure, I do not support further housing growth in surrounding Green Belt/green fields. The existing road network, parking provision, and local services are already under pressure, particularly during term time due to students and visitors. Additional housing, including new homes for students, would exacerbate congestion, limit access for residents, and place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure. Instead, the Local Plan should prioritise: Protection of existing green fields, green belt and open spaces. Maintaining the character, appearance, and heritage of Willaston, hooton, parkgate. Supporting local amenities, tourism, and the town centre without increasing population density beyond current levels.

Comment

Representation ID: 3684

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3866
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 3861

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Miller

NE1
I&O_4043
I agree that there is a need for more affordable and social housing in Neston and Parkgate area. I would caution over extending the housing too far into the agricultural land. This agricultural land provides important wildlife habitate in particular for curlews and sky larks that are rare and losing habitate around the UK. It also supports the large goose population that use the marshes but need to fields as well. I also feel that the transport links to Liverpool and Chester are poor although cycling to Hooton is possible most people will probably drive which is unsustainable. I would like to make sure that all new housing takes into account the need for starter homes and also sustainable energy options, wildlife corridors, room for large trees, water collection and soak away.

Comment

Representation ID: 3982

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4168
Largely agree with this. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3991

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4182
yes - particulalrly like the first point on mixed development - suggest this this front loaded so that affordable homes need to be built first before larger propoerties are allowed points need to be re-ordered into priority oder of importance

Comment

Representation ID: 4072

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Lycett

NP1
I&O_4280
I do not agree.  The approach does not take into account the individual characteristics of the Neston and Parkgate area. There is no mention of either the Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration.   Any proposed development will impact the visual coherence of the area, including its architectural style, historical significance and overall character. It will also result in a threat to the heritage value of the area.   The study does not give enough weight to the environmental impact of new development and population growth on the Dee Estuary and it's internationally recognised habitats and their protections.  The proposed development areas for Parkgate / Neston fall within the range to impact these from a number of perspectives:    - Public Access / disturbance (recreational pressure) - Water pollution (water quality) - Loss of functionally linked habitat  - Urbanisation The Green belt sites surrounding Neston and Parkgate in particular are an important functionally linked habitat for the Dee estuary and its highly mobile migratory and resident protected bird species that roost there throughout the year.   The fields between Parkgate and the Chester Road in particular are important for feeding and displacement during the annual Parkgate high tide events.  Supporting population growth and the housing required for that is important,  but not at the risk of sacrificing the viability of the Dee Estuary habitats.  Development on some of the proposed Parkgate and Neston sections of the green belt would risk that.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4107

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Shipman

NE1
I&O_4336
Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 4116

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Terence Nolan

NP1 Question NE1
I&O_4345
The policy suggests compliance with the Neston Neighbourhood Plan but omits retention and protection of the North Cheshire Green Belt, overwhelmingly supported in a referendum by the local population and subsequently by the Neston Town Council. The policy should be amended to include the expressed will of the populace.

Comment

Representation ID: 4326

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Parkgate Society

I&O_4555
We do not agree.  The approach does not take into account the individual characteristics of the Neston and Parkgate area. There is, for instance, no mention of either the Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration.   Any proposed development will impact the visual coherence of the area, including its architectural style, historical significance and overall character. It will also result in a threat to the heritage value of the area.    The Parkgate Society regards preservation of the Green Belt as an overriding priority and under no circumstances would we be in agreement to development on the greenbelt in the local area.  Depending on which Spatial strategy options is accepted, the proposals for a significant number of new houses to be built around the area would be bound to alter the ‘rural’ nature of the area and to impact on the relevant townscapes.   Equally the approach does not take into account the impact of any developments on the environment and pollution, transportation, and on local amenities and services Impact on the environment The area lies within a floodplain and is at risk of environmental degradation. The lower part of the area (adjacent to the marsh) already experiences flooding issues during winter months – any further disturbance to ground water that drains to that area is only likely to increase flood risks.  There would have to be massive investment made for increased levels of sewerage: the River Dee already has above average levels of sewerage dumped into the river from Quayside, and it is well documented that the sewerage treatment works on the Old Quay (upstream of Parkgate) are at over capacity. Impact on traffic and transportation Any proposed development will increase congestion and affect local road networks, (roads which are at present not well maintained), and will create safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. The Parade in Parkgate is already very congested and Leighton Road is not suitable to take any more traffic. There is already insufficient provision for parking or public transportation. Despite Neston having its own train station, the service is very limited in terms of direct destinations and the surrounding infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic or park and ride facilities. There are limited opportunities for local employment on the Clayhill industrial Estate, but there is currently no train service to Deeside Industrial Park or Cheshire Oaks which are large local employers. Impact on local amenities and services Any large-scale development will have a detrimental impact on local amenities and services. Neston High School and the local primary schools are already at maximum capacity. There will be an increased strain on infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, and other public services. Any development will affect the availability of essential amenities, such as shops, parks, or recreational spaces .

Comment

Representation ID: 4367

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Biernacki

I&O_4596
I agree Neston and Parkgate have wildlife greenspace areas that are important and strong link to visitor experiences and encourages business to the area. These areas must be identified and protected, with acknowledgement that this isn't ring fenced to a few fields near the marshes, all the fields that boundary the Wirral way are vital and important habitat for this wildlife and particularly birds. Encouraging vitality in Neston town and employment locally through the Clayhill is also welcome.

Comment

Representation ID: 4402

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Enevoldson

I&O_4633
No. Option C in the Spatial Strategy Options is especially inappropriate since it is founded on a specious premise of a reasonable train service and the feasibility of development of the rail infrastructure. In general, I would oppose development on green belt land, especially that which keeps Neston/Parkgate separate from Heswall/Gayton. Also, all this land is “functionally linked land” for the Dee estuary Ramsar/SPA site and indeed even the Mersey estuary Ramsar/SPA site. Furthermore it is clear that the present infrastructure of Neston & Parkgate (water supply, sewage disposal, doctors’ surgeries, schools etc) is already at full capacity and could not cope with the proposed increased population. More specifically I would oppose development of NEP01 because ·      Surface run off already floods the Wirral Way every winter ·      There is no suitable access through Leighton Road or Wood Lane to the facilities and transport links of Neston. Access would have to be via Parkgate Parade (which is already log-jammed much of the year) and/or the A540, accessed by Boathouse Lane directly (access through Leighton Road and/or the Runnel highly unsuitable). ·      The area has high “landscape sensitivity”, particularly affecting the overview of the Dee estuary. ·      Development would negatively impact the open space and recreational value of the area including: o   The Wirral Way o   National Cycle Route 56 o   The public footpath running along Wood Lane towards Backwood Hall and Gayton, enjoyed by many walkers and runners. I think there are some ways to develop extra housing in Neston: ·      Areas of land which would perhaps be suitable (or “least worst”) would be those on either side of Liverpool Road towards its junction with the A540 (which would form a suitable boundary to further spread), and land to the north of the present Neston “tip” for further employment development. ·      Development of student accommodation at Leahurst should be encouraged. This would free up numerous houses within the Neston/Little Neston area without losing the economic benefits that come with having a local student population.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4452

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Jannette Linford

I&O_4703
Response to the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Consulation August 25 NE1: Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Neston and Parkgate as set ut in NP1 - Neston and Parkgate above If not suggest how it could be ammended.  I do not agree with the approach as it does not take into account the individual and unique characteristics of Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration which seems to be a major oversight. The Dee Marshes are an area of Special Protecton, Special Conservation and an area of Specail Scientific Interest. As agreed and noted by CWAC in their letter to the Secretary of State in October 22.   The proposals  this will result in the loss of a the unique heritage of the area and what makes it so special as seen by the number of visitors it attracts.  I regard the preservation of the Green Belt area as an overriding consideration and I would not agree to the development on the green belt in the local area. Depending on which Spatial strategy option is accepted the proposals for a significant number of new houses to be built around the area would alter the rural nature of the area and impact on the relevant townscapes.  The approach does not take into account the impact of any developments on the unique environment and the subsequent pollution, transportation, local amenities and services.  Impact on the environment The area I believe sits within a floodplain and is at risk of environmental degradation. The lower part of the area next to the marsh already suffers from flooding issues during the winter months and I am concerned that any more disturbance to the ground water that drains to that area is only likely to increase the flood risk. Given how the weather is significantly changing in the country and the increasing incidents of flooding we are now experiencing nation wide this should be taken into consideration. There would need to be a huge amount of investment made for the increased levels of sewage going into the river from the Quayside, it is well documented that the sewage treatment works on the Old Quay (upstream from Parkgate) are already at over capacity.  Impact on transportation and traffic Any proposal for further development would increase congestion and impact the local road networks which as you will be aware are currently not well maintained and further congestion with pose a safety hazards for both pedestrians and cyclists (which the area currently attracts together with a large number of walkers).  As you will see from any day to visit Parkgate the front is already very congested and Leighton Road is not suitable to take further traffic.  There is already insufficient parking and public transport. Whilst Neston does have its own train station, the services are exstremely limited both in destination and frequency for example there is no direct train to Liverpool or Chester.  The infrasture would not cope with increased traffic or a park and ride.  There are limited employment opportunities on the Clayhill Ind Estate and there is no train service to Deeside Industrial Park or Cheshire Oaks, Liverpool or Chester which are major employers. The direct hourly bus into Chester does not run in the evening and there is no service on a Sunday.  Impact on the local amenities and services Any large scale development will have a deterimental impact on both local services and amenities.  I understand that Neston High School and the primary schools are already at full capacity. There would be an increased strain on the infrasture especially health care facilities and other essential public services. There are no direct buses or trains to either of the main hospitals of Arrow Park and Chester.  Any development will affect the availability of parks and recreational spaces HO 3 I would suggest that student accommodation should be encouraged on the Leahurst campus of the Uni of Liverpool OS4 I believe that the current order of provision of open space in new developments is appropriate and increasing flexibility would have a determiental impact. FW1 As noted above I am concerned that  drainage issues are taken into consideration in an area suc as the proposed NE01 since I believe there is surface run off already which floods in hoses at the bottom of Boathouse Lane and the Wirral way.  With global warming the changes we have seen in the weather both locally, and nationally we can not under estimate the potential increase in flooding.  To be considered for all of Parkgate and Neston  as noted above the sewage works at the Old Quay is already at capcity. Sewage overspills already occur on a regular basis on to the Dee marshes which are a special area of Conservation, a special protection area and an area of Special scientific interest.  I understand that at the Marshlands Road site theew were 24 sewage dumps for a total of 308 hours in 2024. The impact of these issues on the Dee Estuary Special Protection area and its biodiversity was recognised by CWAV in its letter to the Secretary of State date 7th October 22.  The supply of fresh water is nearing capcity.  FW4 I believe that it is should not need to be stated that the water supply, waste/sewage capcity issues should be dealt with as a matter of urgency and should certainly take place before significant additional housing is allowed.  LA 4 I agree and further note that muc of the land around Neston and Parkgate is within the Dee Coastal Area of Special Interest and Value.   

Comment

Representation ID: 4540

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Neston Civic Society

I&O_4822
In reply to the Question 'Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Neston and Parkgate, as set out in NP1 above? No. While the principles outlined in NP1 sound reasonable, we would be concerned over a number of issues. There is no mention of the Neston and Parkgate Conservation area as a planning consideration. Any proposed development as outlined in the plan will impact the nature of the Neston and Parkgate community, threatening its character and individuality. The Civic Society is committed to preserving all Green Belt areas around Neston and Parkgate and feel strongly that any development should be on grey and brownfield sites.  The proposed significant development on the Green Belt threatens to remove distinctions between neighbouring communities, remove valuable green spaces that are vital to the health and well being of our community and have a significant impact on the 'rural' nature of the area.   The proposed developments would have major impact on local infrastructure, amenities and services. This does not seem to have been taken into account. Transport to areas providing work  is already woefully inadequate in Neston and Parkgate. Dentists, doctors and schools would also be severely impacted.  Sewage and water services are already under pressure from existing housing and considerable investment would be needed to provide an adequate service.  Large scale development would mean increased traffic which would put a strain on already congested roads. The impact of the proposed possible development on Neston and Parkgate presents more problems than benefits. We encourage the Council to look closely at the local plans for Neston and Parkgate and to limit any development to brown and greyfield sites.    

Comment

Representation ID: 4566

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Gwyn

Q NE 1
I&O_4849
Add provision for the improvement of bus and train transport infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 4592

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Joy and Neville Chamberlain

I&O_4878
GREEN  BELT Areas of Green Belt are the lungs of Neston.  They are pools of local wildlife and form defining boundaries for the town.  The very nature of Neston will be forever changed if any of the green belt area was lost.  Therefore, I wish to argue strongly that any new development plan should regard the green belt areas as sacrosanct. NESTON AS A SMALL MARKET TOWN Any planning policy relating to small market towns, like Neston, should play to that essentially English character.  The mix of green belt and residential areas, serviced by a vibrant town centre is the basis of that character. To avoid any hollowing-out of the town centre, it is vital that it remain lively and relatively self sustaining. Planning policy should be construed to encourage services and residential capacity within the the town centre.  There is scope for building new, affordable housing on land in the centre, within easy walking distance of amenities and the railway station.  There are central areas of Neston where outdated facilities are now derelict.  New blocks with ground floor retail/service units and affordable flats 2/3 stories above would help the town reach new housing targets as well as strengthen the market town image. TRAVEL Widening the existing road accesses is not practical nor would it help the Small Market Town image.  Tarmacing over large tracts of open land is not an efficient use of land.  But adequate car park space is required;  perhaps modest multistorey car parks (like the Saisbury one) are the anwer. Ideally, we should be working towards direct rail connections to where Nestonians might wish to travel (  Chester and Liverpool) without train changes.  (Do many really want to go to Wrexham ?!) Meanwhile, attention needs to be focussed on an efficient, reliable country bus service to the "big cities" and our neighbours.

Comment

Representation ID: 4691

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Morag Youd

NE1
I&O_4998
1 Leighton Road is not suitable for extra traffic. It is narrow in places, ie between the Neston traffic lights and the stretch past the the junction with Buggen Lane, Wood Lane and beyond, and has several narrow blind bends between Old Oaks Farm and The Runnel. 2 Farm animals and wildlife would be badly affected if there was extra traffic, housing and people along Leighton Road. 3 Several residents of Paddock Drive who back onto these fields suffer already from surface runoff into gardens which has been worse since the development at Turners View and building at Clayhill/Morgans. Any further building would exacerbate this problem and could lead to flooding into properties. 4 There would be a need for extensive provision of infrastructure such as sewerage and runoff pipes to deal with increased sewage and water usage and to alleviate runoff flooding of properties downhill from Leighton Road. 5 Without this infrastructure the delicate marsh area at Parkgate which supports much wildlife, risks being polluted with sewage and runoff water if there is more development. 6 The council tip at Clayhill used to be a landfill site which could contain all kinds of hazards which could leach into the ground of any potential development of areas on the downhill side of Leighton Road. Indeed if the site of the old landfill site was developed this could cause general pollution in the area as leachates disperse into the air including asbestos which I believe was handled for disposal at this site. 7 The fields from Brooklands path to Boathouse Lane would cause similar problems if developed and as the properties would run along the unadopted and narrow Wood Lane, the increased volume of traffic would cause more traffic issues for residents with properties on or backing onto Wood Lane, and would impact Brook Lane and Paddock Drive residents who have to use Wood Lane to exit from their properties. 8 Any development between the Wirral Way at Parkgate and Leighton Road would increase the amount of traffic in Boathouse Lane which is a main route for the already huge number of visitors to the historic village of Parkgate and its prom. 9 Increased population in Parkgate and Neston would require increased services like doctors, schools and other essential services and there is little room in this small area to provide these increased services. 10 There are only a limited number of exit roads from Neston and Parkgate leading to the A540 Chester High Road which is the main artery route in this area - these roads are Boathouse Lane, The Runnel (which is very narrow and accessed from Leighton Road and where these roads meet, is frequently under water), Liverpool Road, Raby Park Road (which has traffic calming measures and provides access to Neston High School and Brio Leisure Centre), and Hinderton Road, all of which are artery routes from existing housing estates and Clayhill Industrial Estate.

Comment

Representation ID: 4861

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5214
I think the policy needs to be refined to include all the local areas properly. "Neston and Parkgate" is not strictly accurate as Neston (market town) has also close links to Parkgate (a heritage seafront resort) but also Ness (a heritage rural hamlet and conservation area), Little Neston (a modern suburban infill) and surrounding settlements of Burton and Willaston. Ness is a protected village with a farming and mining heritage, and while the conservation order itself from a planning perspective covers the listed building surrounding the village green and mining dwellings, the entirety of Ness village should be carefully considered to retain the character of the place when considering appropriate development sites. For example, the area north east of the village is outside the conservation area but is green belt land. When approaching the village from Mill Lane the protected area of the village is seen in the context of the agricultural land that is fundamentally part of the village history and and character, and also views out over the Dee Estuary beyond. Aspects such as these should be taken into account inside the policy to ensure developments are done sensitively and as "unseen" as possible when it comes to impacting existing heritage. Also in the key issues it states "Neston and Parkgate is a distinctive and attractive historic market town, with a mix of historic buildings sitting in high quality countryside with good access to quality green spaces" but access to those green spaces is not explicitly protected inside the policy. At least two of the proposed development areas would directly remove some of the green space paths and/or change access to them (e.g. a public right of way across a field that has existed for decades shouldn't be turned into a pavement down a residential street).