Comment

Representation ID: 4874

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Wetherell

NER1
I&O_5227
Yes, 

Comment

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Rob Ward

I&O_5354
Neston is a community, protected by the Green Belt, which should be protected, especially the area between Parkgate and Gayton. Site reference 2133, 1533 and 2164 are areas that should not be considered for development. We do not need more big expensive houses, but we do need small, cheap housing for students, young people, and retired people. The Neston Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group identified suitable areas within the town,  including unused blocks of garages in social housing estates. Lois Bulley House, off Romney Close, was built on such a site.   On the map, site 2165 is described as East of Well Lane, but it is West.

Comment

Representation ID: 5080

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lauren Bu

I&O_5439
We live in Ness and have concerns with the outlined plans for use of Greenbelt land around this area for the following reasons: 1. Already troublesome access to the village via Mill Lane and Damhead lane. Single track lanes, we have witnessed accidents and near misses due to blind bends and narrow roads. Accident just last week outside our house. Increasing flow through these roads would be damaging. 2. Ness and it's surrounding area has outstanding beauty with biodiversity of wildlife. We frequently see birds of prey/bats/hedgehogs/insects in our village and backgardens. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5128

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Bu

I&O_5492
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development of 1,000 new homes in the Neston and Parkgate area. While I understand the need for new housing, I have significant concerns that this development would place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure and the character of our community: Transport & Congestion : The existing road network in and around Neston and Parkgate is already under significant pressure. Additional traffic from 1,000 new homes risks severe congestion, particularly on key routes such as [insert local roads], with knock-on effects for safety and air quality. Healthcare & Education Capacity : Local GP practices and schools are already stretched. Without guaranteed investment in new facilities, the development would compromise access to essential services. Environmental & Landscape Impact : Neston and Parkgate are valued for their natural setting and proximity to protected areas such as the Dee Estuary. Large-scale development risks harming local biodiversity and diminishing the character and heritage of the area. Flood Risk & Drainage : Parts of this area are already vulnerable to surface water flooding. A development of this scale could exacerbate these risks unless robust mitigation is guaranteed. For these reasons, I believe the proposal in its current form is unsustainable and does not align with the principles of responsible, balanced development. I urge the Council to reconsider the scale and location of this housing allocation and instead prioritise smaller, more sustainable developments with appropriate infrastructure planning.

Comment

Representation ID: 5753

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Cope

NE1
I&O_6125
yes, whilst protecting the green belt important to the nature reserves surrounding the area

Comment

Representation ID: 5779

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6151
In general yes, but with the previous comment taken into account.

Comment

Representation ID: 6401

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Jackson

I&O_6814
Neston and Parkgate, including surround villages of Ness and Ness Holt which will this policy will also affect, are, as stated, a market town.  The town centre is small, areas are thriving. But it can already get busy during busy periods. Parking can be near impossible despite numerous large car parks. The 'supermarkets' are not large. The proposed enlargement of the town is not in keeping with this town and surrounding areas. It will distinctly ruin the feel of the 'market' town, the aesthetic will be ruined.  Areas of building including suggestions of building on greenbelt. This is not acceptable. The fields are arable. They should remain this way.  Whilst I understand the need for some growth, there are brown field areas which should superseed any thought of using greenbelt.  Neston's infrastructure can simply not cope with the proposed number of houses. There are two GP surgeries, one dentist - of which all get fully and quickly booked.  Current habitants of the town will end up feeling the consequences of the suggested growth, which is too big for a 'market town'. Roads will suffer, already with potholes.  A significant reduction in growth, not using greenbelt, would be the only way to correct this. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6456

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chloe Randall

I&O_6870
I deeply disagree.  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 have an extream impact on the area,. It will also result in a threat to national heritage importance of the area. Preservation of the Green Belt is utterly essential in this area, I will never support, the proposals for a significant number of new houses to be built around the area. This would completely destroy the ‘rural’ nature of the area. 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. Furthermore, the area is a wildlife conservation area, hosting habitat to rare birds and unique marshland. The proposed development would risk disturbing migratory and breeding behaviours and put at risk the last area of wilderness left in Cheshire. 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 very small and winding and 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 To build in the region of 4000 houses here is unsustainable and will iirevocably change the area for ever. The town has a very strong character and identity, that must be respected, not treated with such contempt.

Comment

Representation ID: 6764

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: SATPLAN Ltd

I&O_7191
These representations have been prepared on SATPLAN Strategic Land in response to the Cheshire West & Chester Council (CWAC) Local Plan – Issues & Options (Regulation 18) Representations – July 2025.   The representations relate specifically to Land at Wood Lane, Parkgate.  These representations seek to provide specific comments in relation to the suggested policy approach towards Neston and Parkgate, as set out in  NP 1 ‘Neston and Parkgate’ and particularly the benefits of directing further growth to Parkgate.   The Site   The Site is identified within the consultation document in Table B.11 as within the growth area of Neston & Parkgate ( NEP01) and also in the 2025 Land Availability Assessment as site ref: 2164.   The Site extends to approximately 28.61 Gross Acres and is capable of delivering approximately 350 -365 dwellings with public open space and Biodiversity Net Gain opportunities.   Deliverability   The National Planning Policy Framework requires that to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and that development of the site is viable.   The Site is available now and offers the opportunity for the early delivery of a high-quality residential development that will provide both market and affordable housing and would make a valuable contribution to addressing housing land supply in Cheshire West and Chester within the next 5 years.   The level of affordable housing for this Site and elsewhere in the borough should be determined further to a borough-wide viability assessment with a strong focus directed towards realistic rates that can be delivered.   The Site is within a sustainable location where there is good access to services and facilities. A public footpath also runs between the site and the adjacent Council owned playing fields, providing pedestrian and cycle access to Parkgate and Parkgate Primary School (circa 80m from the site). The footpath also provides access to the Wirral Way which is a dedicated cycle and walking route (running from West Kirby through to Hooton) this would also be the main pedestrian and cycle routes to Neston centre (1.44km).   Several detailed technical investigations have already been undertaken which demonstrate the suitability and deliverability of the site for residential development. There are no technical impediments to development. All matters including landscape, access, drainage, ecology, amenity, and infrastructure have been addressed through a landscape-led and technically robust design.   The Site very clearly meets the key tests in terms of suitability, achievability and availability and therefore is deliverable. In terms of the deliverability, there are no constraints that would prevent this site from coming forward. The Site is arguably a “Grey Belt” candidate Site as set out in the NPPF.   In summary, the Site at Wood Lane, Parkgate can accommodate future growth through carefully planned proposals in this location.  These representations demonstrate that it is possible to deliver much-needed housing in a way that protects village identity, meets infrastructure demands, and secures long-term benefits for both current and future residents.              

Comment

Representation ID: 7192

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael O'Sullivan

I&O_7667
No to Green belt being released. Leahurst - Concerns as to the "boundary" referred that is referred to.

Comment

Representation ID: 7321

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Keith Mills

NE 1
I&O_7801
I do not agree with this as the approach fails to consider fully the unique characteristics and environment of Neston and Parkgate.  It is of note that Parkgate is a conservation area of historical significance bordering the Deeside wetlands an RSPB resrve of national importance.  Any incursion upon the greenbelt for devlopment will have a serious detrimental effect on the area in terms of removal of rural character,  environmental impact and also with respect to impact on infrastructure. The road network in and around Parkgate and Neston is overstretches at present and this has been increasingly apparent following the development of houses on the site of the former Mostyn House School plus other developments on Parkgate Road.  Traffic at Neston Cross and through Neston town centre is already very congested.  

Comment

Representation ID: 7926

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8415
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 8139

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8628
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 8319

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8808
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 8544

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9035
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 8735

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9228
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 8884

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9377
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9006

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9499
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9275

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9768
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9518

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10013
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9625

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10121
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9734

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10230
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9856

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10353
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.

Comment

Representation ID: 9937

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Trish Pegg

NP1
I&O_10434
The proposed option three appears to be in opposition to the local plan which highlights the need for protecting and enhancing green and open spaces, and protecting the appearance, setting and character of the Dee coastal area.  To give a specific example - area 8 was set aside as 'green space' when the Turners View development was approved. Are such mandated 'green spaces' which were necessary to gain approval for the development now being overridden. Sewage treatment works - there is extensive body of evidence which clearly demonstrates that the current sewage treatment works can not cope with existing demand resulting in environmental damage, but this appears not to have been recognised. This can surely only worsen with increased numbers of properties. As a resident of XXX, off XXX Road, I am very aware of the blockage hot spots on XXX Road, particularly approaching XXX from Neston Village. It is not practical to substantially increase traffic on XXX Road. It already can be a nightmare turning right out of XXX with many parked cars blocking the view, particularly if cyclists are approaching, so I think an increase in traffic along XXX Road will be detrimental to car and cycle road users, and to the safety of pedestrians walking into Neston - we have to cross the road 4 times to access a footpath. 

Comment

Representation ID: 9956

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemary Hollingsbee

NE1
I&O_10453
NE1 I agree with the suggested policy approach NP1 ‘Neston and Parkgate’ in particular Protecting and enhancing the network of green and open spaces And Managing the potential impact on designated habitat sites   The proposed building on sites NEP01 and NEP02 would have the following detrimental effects on these 2 areas From the first point, the Neston and Parkgate economy to which you refer also uses the area around Wood Lane and the green spaces surrounding it. The tourist area is not just confined to Parkgate Parade and the Wirral Way.   From the second point on habitat, building in this area would impact on designated habitat sites along the Wirral Way-wildlife can’t just survive in the narrow area along the Wirral Way.

Comment

Representation ID: 10179

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Trust Land Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10676
At section NP 1 of the Issues and Options consultation document, the policy approach for the New Local Plan is set out. The document states that Neston and Parkgate will be identified as a market town in the New Local Plan settlement hierarchy. The New Local Plan will also set out the location of new development around the town, which may require the release of Green Belt land. In terms of its proposed position on the Settlement Hierarchy, Neston will be categorised as a market town, which sits on the third tier of the hierarchy along with Frodsham. The top tier of the hierarchy is Chester (City) followed by Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford as ‘Main towns’ on the second tier. As a market town, Neston and Parkgate sits above other settlements of Cuddington and Sandiway, Farndon, Helsby, Kelsall, Malpas, Tarporley, Tarvin and Tattenhall. Savills is supportive of the broad policy approach set out for Neston and Parkgate, particularly where the policy wording aims to provide a mix of new homes, especially affordable market and social housing for young people, students, families, starter homes and smaller properties to enable downsizing and meeting the needs of older residents. The policy approach will be generally reflective of the objectives of the Neston Neighbourhood Plan, which is also supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 10215

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Neston Town Council

I&O_10712
Please find the comments from Neston Town Council for the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan issues and options (Regulation 18) consultation. Comments relate to Section 11 – Neston & Parkgate and Section, as well as the Option A, B and C Site maps from Section 5 Spatial Strategy (Map 5.1, Map 5.2, Map 5.3). Map 5.14 (Neston & Parkgate Growth Options), Questions SS53, SS54 and SS55. Formal response to the CWaC Local Plan Consultation (Issues and Options): “In principle, Neston Town Council agrees that development is necessary, angled strongly towards a high percentage of affordable and social housing. Infrastructure needs to be increased and improved for this to happen. In the first instance, there needs to be a focus on derelict and unused sites. Neston will look chiefly at areas of significant green belt which needs to be retained for recreation. Any land identified as brown belt is to be developed first, followed by grey belt. Neston Town Council considers that NEP02 would be suitable for some mixed-use development as well as NEPO3 for potential sites. Neston Town Council does not consider that NEP01, NEP04, NEP05 or NEP06 are suitable for any development. Constraints for any developments would need to include new schools. Any further development would require a new water treatment centre and sewerage system upgrades. Appropriate upgrades of all essential services and improvements to public transport are a must. Neston Town Council considers that a blend of a healthy amount of all options would be most suitable, whilst retaining as much of the green belt as possible from Option ‘A’ with not as many houses as suggested in Option ‘C’. The Town Council notes that increased development in the area could have a big impact on wildlife and wishes to preserve the town’s sanctuary for wildlife and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Neston Town Council is mindful that there needs to be a balance of nature with its significant impact on tourism and businesses.” It was RESOLVED: To submit the above formal response in full to Cheshire West & Chester’s Local Plan Consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 10315

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Christine Wetherell

I&O_10812
  New Homes P.19 Electricity grid highly constrained – surely unable to cope with significant additional building of new houses, additional demand. Improving this needs to go before any building. Any extension of power needs should be through electricity and (truly) green hydrogen (just coming online). Build to at least A Rated Housing Standards What about more renewable energy supplies? (P88 on ….) P.24 Housing Do building companies and individual have information on global warming and ‘green’ building methods, and will they follow better guidelines Advice to Residents needs to be sent to all residents. Social Housing should be given financial/practical help P.50 on - (New Housing) Contributes 15% of carbon emissions ( but how many new houses is this figure calculated from ?) Retrofitting – substantial investment and training – at the moment; poverty is related to energy costs Social housing providers need to be made to upgrade as a priority There are only 8 houses in the whole of CWAC rated A ( we are rated A+ as we built a Passivhaus – Neston ) Most are still rated D/C is 2 nd /E is 3 rd /B is 4 th /F is 5 th and A is 6 th To bring all houses to at least C rating will cost £473.6m; to Net Zero £3.5bn Resident properties are the third-highest CO 2 Industrial and Transport are first and second Resident information should be fully circulated Opportunities and funding for retrofitting needs to be widely available – and should be a priority Aspiration = building houses to Net Zero – this is in fact quite difficult. Need to add in the materials and transport for building + the damage to land. Use the latest ‘green’ materials (concrete replacements made out of recycled plastics coming to the market soon) ‘green’ concrete etc. If you are going to use the latest heating/cooling systems (MVHR – Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery Systems – very effective if insulation is sufficient – usually 10”-12”), then you need experts to fit/proper calculations/right suppliers Expense? Grants? – not all have access to grants … depending on income Many young people want to be employed/trained in new green economies More information should be easily available on the above Public opinions Many still don’t believe there is a climate emergency – how to educate, or will it take some real issues to make them understand. The increasing global storms, floods, rising sea levels, melting ice globally, desertification, loss of wildlife etc. should be enough – but people would rather ignore it than face it ( flight rather than fight – theory of fear) (Spielberger and Seligman – Theories of Anxiety and Helplessness ) Therefore, the Council needs to tell the truth on global warming (IPCC, UN etc.) 41 - Transport Significant issue – 90% of emissions are due to roads. Increasing population will make this worse Shift towards Public Transport – expensive – many places have very poor public transport. Connectivity is also an issue ( including Neston ). Whereas some will be able to use more infrastructure relating to cycles, wheels, walking, many cannot use these (older/disabled or distances involved) There are issues around EV’s Particulates (from tyres) Involved in more road collisions The construction/manufacture (carbon footprint) and rare metals mined for the batteries However, once manufactured – they produce less CO 2 Strong need to rebuild bus/train services ( also a problem in Neston ) What about buses using batteries? Much better on the CO 2 levels once manufactured – can present ones be converted? Suggested that residents engage with local councillors ( done !) P 63 – Land Use Land Action Plan (CWAC) reports that Cheshire Countryside renowned for dairy production 77% of the land is Grade III or above Local Nature Recovery Strategy – aimed at protecting nature including: Reduction of emissions from land use – important farmers are incentivised Farming in this country keeps our national food security Solar farms should not be placed on agricultural land No building on flood-prone areas – instead there should be flood mitigation There needs to be less run-off from farmland and urban areas Greenbelt developments CWAC strategic plan is to maintain North Cheshire Greenbelt ( including around Neston ?) High quality of the land is a key asset ( as per Wildlife Survey – vital for Dee over-wintering feeding birds on Greenbelt around Neston ) Trees should be protected – and woodland enhance. It is an offence to cut down trees affected by TPO’s ( are there any in the Greenbelt around Neston – e.g. bordering fields etc. ?) Manage river catchment areas ( including above the Dee ?) Reduce flooding and pollution events ( more likely with greater housing ) Citizens should get involved in nature/climate/environmental activities ( some of us are and are very knowledgeable – but you need to engage with us directly – e.g. I am involved with Chester Diocesan Eco Group, which is responsible for making all churches and church buildings in the Diocese reach higher environmental standards at many levels (including community, wildlife) Wildlife friendly gardening ( which we do ). Most don’t know how to achieve this – you need to circulate information. P 76 - Waste Recycling In top 5% in the country – can this be maintained with greater housing numbers? Agreed – single use-plastics should be banned ( we are already filled with microplastics – at risk to our health; and so are animals, plants, the soil ). Recyclable only should be encouraged in retail etc. It was suggested Green Bin collection should be extended in the autumn during ‘autumn leaf drop season’. And it should be cheaper – to avoid ‘dumping’ or putting gardening waste into the black bins. Garden/food composting should be encouraged ( which we do ). CWAC needs to educate people. However, compost bins and hotbins (for food) are not cheap and you need land for them. What exactly DOES happen to all our rubbish – we need clarification !

Comment

Representation ID: 10320

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Christine Wetherell

I&O_10817
Transport Links – there are no excuses for our already poor Public Transport infrastructure. Your Climate Emergency Response Plan specifically mentions improving this.  ANY new housing will mean more cars on the road in and around Neston.  And this is bad news because: It was pointed out our access roads into Neston are extremely narrow, and some very twisty and rather dangerous. I have had several ‘near misses’ on Leighton Road, and I am an Advanced Driver, so know how to hug the corners.  Big cars, vans, take up more than half the road there, and if you meet them on a corner…  Even the main road into Neston narrows under the railway bridge, and twists within the town.  The access from the Burton end, is equally narrow, as is the road to Parkgate, and the one down past Neston High towards Little Neston; and there are cars parked on all of these roads, in narrow places, so drivers have to stop to allow traffic through.  Fortunately, local people are extremely aware of these difficulties and will wait, or allow people through – and you almost always get thanked!  These roads cannot be widened, as there is already housing on both sides of the road, some of it Georgian.  As mentioned in the longer document, this is an extremely old settlement.  It is therefore, on this basis alone, totally unsuitable for further development Parking was also mentioned. It is often at capacity now, both in Sainsbury’s Aldi and the carpark, especially on a Friday (market day).  The parking for the trains was brought up – and this is a major issue; there is no space in the town to increase this, even if the railway line is eventually joined to the Wirral lines effectively (unlikely, due to the cost, and where would it join?).  This would mean there would have to be much better bus services – even the buses struggle on our local roads, and are dependent on people letting them out.  All of them are single height, due to the railway bridge. We have many older people in the town, as well as disabled people. They need sufficient parking and access to the shops and town centre.  If you increase the population, this will be severely restricted due to the over-demand for parking.  I suspect this might be against the law.  This town is already at capacity. Social housing was mentioned several times, and I would say that the present social housing needs upgrading. All the social housing is a good walk from the centre of the town, from the schools, doctors, dentists etc.  Any new housing would be even further out. You mentioned many times about upgrading the local infrastructure if you are building. Presently our schools are full, the dentists and doctors are full.  I don’t know about nurseries, as we are now grandparents (they live in Liverpool).  But, I suspect these are at capacity.  You said you look at all of this before any decisions are made.  I assume these would be circulated to ‘affected’ areas. I mentioned all the sewage issues, but you didn’t answer the question. I know it is under Welsh Water, but you still have the responsibility to make sure that any sewage from any housing (including social) is properly dealt with by Welsh Water – even if it means going through the government.  They want the extra housing.  Therefore they must urgently make sure any infrastructure (including sewage, water etc.,) that they are responsible for, will have the capacity.  Clearly in Neston and Parkgate, there is no further capacity (figures in the document).  Therefore, this is another reason for saying ‘no’ to any expansion of our community. You mentioned several times about mitigating the built-on land by adding to the wildlife areas. And now the government says this can be ‘further away’ from the building sites.  So, where would this be?  Our greenbelt is extremely limited as it is.  And your Wildlife Survey states quite specifically, how important the Greenbelt land is for rare over-wintering birds.  The Dee is a protected area.  And any further building would undoubtedly damage the Estuary, from extra people, pollution from traffic, sewage, and loss of over-wintering lands.   As someone rightly pointed out – legally: Greenbelt is Greenbelt.  It was made Greenbelt for very good reasons.  The question asked about the legality of Greenbelt was rather ‘avoided’. On this point, has any wildlife survey been done on the Greenbelt land? This would need to be done over a whole year to capture a full picture of the wildlife, the farming needs etc.  We need local farms for local food production.  And any survey would have to include the soils, plant varieties, insects, fungi, lichens etc.  I noticed there was very little on the standard of build. As I pointed out, there are only 8 houses in the whole of CWAC that are rated A or above.  (Your figures in the Climate Emergency Response Plan).  In that document, you make specific promises on improving houses to at least C level.  This is obviously an upgrade issue, which should be prioritised.  Are any developers required to built housing to this level or above?  C is actually quite a low threshold.  If you want to stop pollution, and remove gas from the infrastructure (also in your Climate Emergency Plan); any building within CWAC is going to have to reach these standards of energy efficiency; and be built not needing gas (come and look at our house!  We are A+ - we don’t even have any central heating ….).  This should be a requirement within your own expectations.  You cannot aim for one thing, then downgrade it with another.  Will you impose your own requirements on builders? Our internet here is rubbish (we are lucky if we get 3G outside our homes). This is another reason not to build housing, because I suspect we won’t be upgraded, even if you do. It was interesting that a farmer has already been approached by builders. This should NOT be happening, as it puts pressure on farmers to sell their land, even before you as a Borough have made any decisions.  It’s wrong.  I was pleased that another farmer and landowners have decided not to sell.  And the emotion showed about the attachment to land was, I expect, an eye-opener.  I’ve known that woman for probably more than 30 years, and she is a very brave lady.  Several people mentioned Brownfield sites. Have these been investigated?  We had no information on this, and I, (and I’m sure others) would appreciate some feedback on the ‘state of play’ on this issue.  You probably realised that Neston and the surrounding areas are a very close community. This has grown over generations.  We like being  ‘separated’ by our Greenbelt, because it retains that ‘community feel’.  And that Greenbelt, being between us and the A540 (Chester High Road), which is almost constantly very busy, is necessary for our health and well-being, reducing the effects of air pollution – which is well known to affect those with asthma and other breathing problems.  Putting housing on there, would destroy that, as well as increase air pollution.  And – it is against the Wildlife Advice you received anyway. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10324

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Christine Wetherell

I&O_10821
There was a lot of worry about our tiny Greenbelt being built on.  These latest guidelines mean that there is NO LAND for restoration locally, to the extent required if you build any housing, within our local area (and the Towns are already very short of Green Space).  It would be miles away - which is hardly beneficial to nature, The Dee Estuary or local communities. Building here would therefore go against Government guidelines. https://favershamhouse.cmail20.com/t/y-l-qtkijjt-dhdypfjj-o/ (RSPB) Curlew chicks are very vulnerable "“We’ve got to balance the ecosystem so enough Curlew chicks survive,”  They nest in the fields close to the Dee Estuary (where our Greenbelt is).   This rather goes again the government’s policy to build, build, build - and therefore is another reason to join other local councils (below) and fight the government’s plans to build across countryside and greenbelt.  They can always build upwards in brownfield sites in towns and cities with nice designs and properly designed to avoid overheating and overshadowing close-by properties by providing green space around for nature and recreation.    UK Government outlines ambitions to tackle nature and climate crisis email.rspb.org.uk From Natural England: “But time is running out fast – turning round nature’s decline needs to be a collective endeavour, so this is not just the preserve of dedicated specialists. Nature recovery work needs more projects, more volunteers and more money to flow from all sources, particularly the private sector. It will also need to go hand in hand with improved environmental quality, including through reduced pollution.” New building threatens all natural life, particularly some of the rarer wildlife (including insects and other creatures we may not be aware of); and especially on green spaces and Greenbelt. “We will need to see increased ambition on species recovery, particularly looking at what can be done on some of our lost species. In the coming years, habitat management and creation alongside species reintroductions could be a real gamechanger for the health of ecosystems and help us achieve the country’s legally binding targets.” You might be interested in this too - rebel as well!!  The link works, I've just tested it.  It came in the Homebuilding and Renovating email, which we get.  Our Passivhaus was featured in their magazine a few years ago.  The summary below. Industry E-mail Newsletters for Professionals r.smartbrief.com   Councils across England are mounting a united challenge to the Government’s proposed  planning reforms , warning they will strip away local decision-making powers and damage trust in the system. Leaders from urban and rural authorities say the changes – including a two-tier system and tougher housing targets – are unnecessary, unrealistic, and harmful. The growing backlash spans the political spectrum, with critics accusing ministers of centralising control while ignoring local realities. United States:  Suburban development fragments forests, reducing biodiversity and increasing Lyme disease.  Ticks thrive in degraded forests where disease-carrying animals like mice dominate. (from WWF)  Lyme Disease is an issue in the UK.  Another reason not to disturb our trees and other wild plants.