Comment

Representation ID: 10326

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Christine Wetherell

I&O_10823
We all know farming has been deeply hit by this summer, not only in the UK, but across the world.  Food will be much more expensive and less choice, forcing many poorer families to eat poorer diets of ultra-processed food, which it is well-known, is extremely bad for health; putting extra pressure on the NHS, and causing unnecessary grief for many families.  We need to maintain ALL the farming land we have in order to help food production and improve our climate by rewilding as much as possible; and for that, we need the cooperation of farmers and other landowners.     This was published in this month’s Countryfile Magazine : I hope you will resist (as other local authorities are doing) the building plans on greenbelt, which goes against all the government’s climate promises and plans.  They can’t have both.  Either admit they are going to ruin our green areas, farming areas and greenbelt, or do what they promised in their election, and continue to promise, reach Net Zero as soon as possible.  The science figures are dire.  The world is already in trouble.  The heat of this summer and across the world will be likely to take 2025 to near +2oC (it was + 1.6 in 2024 according to the UN and IPCC).     There is not only the houses themselves (and we don’t know to what environmental standards they will be required to be built), but the sewage (already spilling thousands of times in the wet p.a. - and continuously (figures are 51 days continuously and almost 1,500 spills within the space of 1m between Neston and Parkgate - onto the protected area of the Dee Estuary in 2023, the last published figures I could find).  The roads, the water (already very poor compared to the EU standards), electricity (have we got enough power generation?), the roads (reducing drainage); then schools, doctors, hospitals, children’s care, dentists etc.  This list goes on.  There is no clear evidence from the government.  Nor how (for instance) they will make extra natural areas in an area as small as we have around Neston and Parkgate, already known (from your own wildlife report) as important for winter birds, which are often extremely rare and come to our area to overwinter.     I hope that the government will rethink their plans.  I hope that you can minimise any damage to any green areas, and definitely protect Greenbelt

Comment

Representation ID: 10442

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Roberts

I&O_10940
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. The huge number of houses proposed would completely overwhelm local services, some of which such as GPs, Dentists, car parks and small local roads are already under pressure.  Surely there are brownfield sites which can and should be used first?  No one would object to smaller numbers gradually accruing but this would overwhelm the area in one fell swoop. 

Comment

Representation ID: 11263

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Samuel Leigh

I&O_11761
I do not agree.  The proposal in the Consultation 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. Preservation of the Green Belt is sacrosanct to the Parkgate and Neston area and under no circumstances would I be in agreement to development on the Green Belt in Neston and Parkgate. Depending on which Spatial Strategy option 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: 11630

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12128
We support the identification of Neston and Parkgate as a market town in the settlement hierarchy and the need to protect the appearance, setting and character of the Dee Coastal Area of Special County Value. Any proposals for Green Belt release should be resisted in line with our earlier comments about the Spatial Strategy. The reference to protecting the nearby habitats sites alongside the Mersey and Dee should be strengthened to reflect their international importance and the need to protect important supporting habitat in nearby areas e.g. feeding areas for wintering birds.

Comment

Representation ID: 12125

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Knight

I&O_12639
Neston and Parkgate are the only part of Cheshire with a coastal boundary and historical importance and distinctive architectural style and rural character. Large scale developments would be detrimental to the rural feel of the area. There is increased risk of flooding from the Dee and areas of high water table. The local sewage treatment works is already over capacity and the sewage pipe network is old. Recent housing developments have had to incorporate other solutions for sewage to prevent further impact on the treatment works. Local transport links are poor. Large scale developments will exacerbate this putting pressure on areas that already congested which are not built for high volume traffic such as Parkgate Road and The Cross Neston.

Comment

Representation ID: 12181

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Davies

I&O_12695
In relation to NP1 Neston & Parkgate A lack of affordable market and social housing for families to move to and stay in the area. There is also a need for smaller housing both for emerging households and downsizing opportunities for older residents, and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) serving Leahurst students. The consultation doesn’t provide any clear factual evidence on why there is a need for more housing for local people. Where can I find this data, or is it merely an assumption? Here’s some data - According to the Migration Observatory (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford More than half (65%) of the increase in the UK population between 2004 and 2023 was due to the direct contribution of net migration. Since 2020, almost all of the growth in the population has come from net migration. Official figures projected that the UK’s population would grow from 68 million in 2022 to 77 million in 2046. Net migration accounted for 104% of this growth, because deaths were projected to outnumber births from 2030. I can only assume that the direct cause for the need of more housing is to facilitate the country's net migration. There is no mention of this in the NP Key Issues. Is this the true reason for more affordable housing? Can you provide factual data to prove otherwise? Can you justify to your constituents that we should build on our Green Belt as a direct impact of Migration? (before you jump to conclusions, I was an active union official for much of my working life for TGWU later UNITE, I am not politically right-wing!) NP1  The policy approach will generally reflect the objectives and projects identified in the Neston Neighbourhood Plan, including: providing 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. How many new houses would be allocated to local residents and their descendants? Would letting of these properties be allowed  Affordable housing is only “affordable” if the purchaser has appropriate funds. Logically, local, stable employment opportunities along with improving transport infrastructure MUST be made available BEFORE houses are built! I am not against development in the local area, what I am against is being misled by hidden agendas at the expense of our precious Green Belt land!

Comment

Representation ID: 12818

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Michael and Joanne Evennett

I&O_13336
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, for which we are members, 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: 13010

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: M A Hancox

I&O_13529
I object strongly to the plans to build around the fields in the area of Park Fields and Leighton Woods [Burton resident]

Comment

Representation ID: 13236

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Robin Hughes

I&O_13755
Little has changed since 2015 and the list of objectives remains valid.  Below is listed some additional glosses and clarifications. Providing a mix of new homes, especially affordable market and social housing for young people, students, families, starter homes, and smaller properties Neston already has a relatively high proportion of expensive, large, market homes and a shortage of smaller ones, market and for rent. The underlying top-level aim of this NP objective is to rebalance local housing stock in order to secure the viability of the town as a key service centre rather than accepting as inevitable the ageing demographic profile and all that implies for local provisions like health, schools, recreation, retail choices and services. ‘Affordable’ should be taken to mean homes that people can afford, whether for rent or purchase. The current definition of ‘affordable’ is 20% discount on local market value, but already-premium local house prices have been driven up with the result that even discounted properties are not affordable for those of modest means. Enable downsizing and meeting the needs of older residents. The underlying issue is the high proportion of old people living alone in big houses. They want to stay in the area but have little choice because of a lack of suitable alternatives. Freeing up larger properties would also meet some of the demand for that kind of home. Land allocation . Pressure from land owners and developers to build on Green Belt land is not, of its own, sufficient justification even if a ‘affordable’ trade-off or Section 161 income seems attractive. Building on the Green Belt should only be considered, in the public interest, if housing (and employment) needs cannot be met any other way. Mechanisms for scrutiny or appeal should be fair and not require Councils to engage in costly legal battles funded by the taxpayer. In Neston, should it prove necessary for the delivery of local priority housing need, and that only, to build on the Green Belt, bearing in mind the people likely to need this kind of provision, the most obvious locations lie close to the resources of the town centre and transport, possibly in NEP03/04, and not out in the countryside. Addressing long term vacancies and supporting the vitality and viability of the town centre. The continuing neglect and increasing dereliction of the Brook Street/Chester Road car park site is sapping the vitality of the town centre. The NP rezoned it to allow mixed redevelopment but nothing has been achieved in ten years. More drastic action is needed, perhaps through compulsory purchase as part of a town centre regeneration plan that could include starter homes. Clayhill Estate and employment issues. Clayhill Estate was, and remains, an under-developed, unfocussed area of employment land. Until it is brought into full use, in the context of an employment needs analysis and a modern plan, consideration of additional employment land is premature. Any proposals for further increasing the amount of employment land in this area, in the Greenbelt, needs to quantify local employment needs and explain how it will benefit Neston. The local job market has changed since the NP was made. It can be seen most prominently in the expanding visitor economy and hospitality offers, especially in the town centre. Less visible but significant is that Neston businesses are increasingly run from the kitchen table and other small locations, requiring little by way of dedicated premises. Covid has since enhanced that trend. It suits Neston because land availability is so limited and this is an educated entrepreneurial population. Such an approach requires reliable high-capacity internet access and telephone signals, neither of which are the case at the moment. Any consideration of land-use and the local labour market needs to take on board these trends. It is also relevant that inadequate public transport makes access to post 16 education, apprentice and training opportunities in Ellesmere Port and Chester difficult. Consideration should be given to local provision. The development of Neston and Parkgate’s tourism and visitor economy. Now that the potential of the visitor economy is recognised there is a lot to be done. Any plan needs to have regard to the totality of the landscape and the views, and the history that draws people in, as well as identifying key attraction points. ‘Places’ are more than just marketable ‘experiences’ on TikTok. A network of safe walking and cycling connections throughout the area. Providing a network of small parking hubs/drop-off points linked in this way could, potentially, take some off the pressure off the Parkgate honeypot.

Comment

Representation ID: 13761

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brenda Marple

I&O_14281
Local Plan Consultation — The Parkgate Society I fully support the views expressed in the Response written by The Parkgate Society. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13809

Received: 15/09/2025

Respondent: Keith Cox

I&O_14329
We do not agree. The plan provides for the possibility of housing development on the substantial area of land bounded by Wood Lane, Boathouse Lane and Leighton Road (the subject site).  Significant work would be required to advance such a policy approach but all but one landowner concerned who own the land comprising the subject site made clear at the Neston Town Council meeting on 19th August and/or since that they will not sell for development and wish to retain their land for its present agricultural use. On this basis it cannot be worthwhile to work up a policy approach towards the subject site which is merely theoretical and which can never be brought to fruition. The owners who have said they will not sell own the overwhelming majority of the subject site leaving only Llewellyn Field's owner promoting development.  Llewellyn Field is currently used for dog training and recreation by Paws in Nature and for a hay/silage crop twice a year. We believe the owners of Llewellyn Field have long wished to obtain planning for housing development on that field but a large number of issues should prevent this. Access to housing on that field would create extremely dangerous traffic issues and Leighton Road simply cannot take further increased traffic. There are a large number of trees on the field subject to TPOs and there is a nature conservancy area within the field bounded by trees which supports abundant wildlife including three species of bats. In their promotional material Paws in Nature state that the field features ancient trees within a natural environment. A road adjacent to the field is Named Turners View in recognition of the painter Turner's "View" in sketches made of the Dee Estuary whilst he was waiting to travel by ferry to Dublin from Parkgate. We understand the owners of the field previously sold the land on which Turners View and 63 and 65 Leighton road now stand to what is now Lendlease Residential (North West) Limited but which at the time of the sale was Crosby Homes (North West) Limited. Any proposed development on the subject site would not advance the policy approach set out in NP1 given that only a small part of the subject site could be advanced in the absence of willing sellers. Any promotion of Llewellyn Field as a development site should be considered in the context of incursion on the green belt and wanton destruction of a nature conservation area including a large number of trees subject to TPOs without achieving the intended policy approach. As was suggested at the meeting on 19th August a better outcome would arise from exploring the potential of Brownfield sites on Chester High Road which are served by existing public transport links.

Comment

Representation ID: 13874

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Martin

I&O_14394
I generally agree with the response of the Parkgate Society  And disagree with the proposed policy approach  The approach does not take account of the individual characteristics of the Neston and Parkgate area, with no mention of the Conservation Areas . Large scale development will affect the visual appearance and architectural style of the area and a threat to its heritage value . The preservation of the Green Belt should be an overriding priority and the scale of some of the options would detrimentally affect its rural character I also agree that approach does not address the legitimate concerns for the impact of developments on the environment and pollution, transportation , local amenities and services. The area lies in a floodplain and the lower part nearer the marsh already floods with any development affecting ground water and increase flood risks Sewage and current capacity is also a big issue in that increased levels are already being dumped in the River Dee  Any increased development will increase congestion and affect local road networks ( not well maintained and Wood Lane unadopted ) and will create increased safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. The Parade is already very congested and can be dangerous and Leighton Road is narrow and has dangerous bends and not really suitable to take more traffic. There is already insufficient provision for parking or public transportation  Neston station has a limited service with very limited parking and no direct service to Chester or Liverpool or other main local employers.  Any large scale development will also detrimentally affect local amenities and services requiring additional capacity for local schools , healthcare facilities and other public services. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13952

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Hodge

I&O_14472
I don’t agree with the suggested approach towards Neston and Parkgate as I believe the suggestion that Green Belt land could be a first-choice option for this level of housing development would be short sighted. Green Belt areas exist to protect the countryside from over development, safeguard vital natural habitats along with essential farmland and to preserve the character of rural communities. Prioritising the use of Green Belt for large-scale development not only undermines these purposes but also disregards the opportunity to redeveloped previously developed land and the option for urban regeneration within. An approach such as this risks long-term environmental degradation and sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion of protected landscapes and farmland. Development should be directed towards more sustainable, strategically planned locations that align with both environmental and community interests.

Comment

Representation ID: 14156

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Rob Ward

I&O_14700
I responded on-line, as you requested, but I found the system very hard to navigate. I would like to add some comments now, please. Neston is a special place, with a strong sense of community, which is helped by its geography, and the protection of the Green Belt. It is also very varied, with pockets of deprivation, which means we need more social housing than we now have. Many of the houses next to ours were social housing but were sold, some now being rented privately. The Right to Buy was good socially, but was not followed by building new properties. The present problem is not being solved by landowners, developers and councils all working separately. Please can you use the money from selling social housing to build new ones? If you are prevented by HM Government from doing this, please let me know and I will make the argument to our MP, Samantha Dixon.

Comment

Representation ID: 14915

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Anthony Clark

I&O_15466
Broadly yes. There is scope to extend the policy (depending on the final spatial option) to provide greater recognition of the role of Neston and Parkgate as an employment hub. Should the new Local Plan include a policy for Neston and Parkgate? Yes. Based on the quantum of development that Neston and Parkgate is capable of accommodating a policy for Neston and Parkgate would be justified. The policy should acknowledge and promote the scale of development opportunity and the benefits this can and will deliver to both new and existing local residents and wider infrastructure. Please add any other comments you wish to make about the approach to Neston and Parkgate in the new Local Plan? The validity of the allocation of Local Wildlife sites should be considered. With particular reference to ‘Lloyds Hay Meadow’ which is considered to be a spurious allocation that does not warrant such as notable designation. It appears to offer no additional or specific value over and above neighbouring field areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 15169

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Argyle

Agent: Lichfields

I&O_15728
Policy NP 1 proposes to identify Neston and Parkgate as a market town in the new Local Plan settlement hierarchy, with a focus on the delivery of a mix of new homes in the town. The landowner supports the inclusion of a place-based policy for Neston and Parkgate, recognising the services on offer in the settlement and its ability to accommodate further development. The specific inclusion of providing a mix of homes is supported, ensuring the settlement continues to grow sustainably, businesses in the town can continue to succeed, and that a sufficient number of homes are provided to meet the area’s need.

Comment

Representation ID: 15233

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15792
As already explained under question SS 5, Barratt Redrow fully support the elevation of Neston and Parkgate to a ‘Market Town’ in the emerging settlement hierarchy. This will necessitate the allocation of some Green Belt release site(s), with Land at Raby Park Road (NEP04) representing a highly suitable and sustainable housing site. Policy NP 1 notes that the policy approach will generally reflect the objectives and projects identified in the Neston Neighbourhood Plan (NP). We note that the adopted NP was adopted in March 2016 and covers the existing local plan period up to 2030. Therefore, whilst some of its general objectives will remain relevant, it will be important to ensure it is updated such that it remains in general conformity with the new Local Plan and does not undermine its strategic objectives. It’s policies and objectives can therefore not be fully relied upon when drafting the emerging Local Plan, as the plan is now dated and a new planning policy context is emerging.

Comment

Representation ID: 15587

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16146
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Neston and Parkgate, as set out in NP 1 'Neston and Parkgate' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended? WBC Response: No comments at this stage. Please add any other comments you wish to make about the approach to Neston and Parkgate in the new Local Plan? WBC Response: Any policy approach should maintain the separation between built up areas within Wirral and Parkgate and Neston and retain their distinctiveness.

Comment

Representation ID: 16083

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Kathy Ricketts

I&O_16664
Some

Comment

Representation ID: 16140

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemary Parkinson

I&O_16721
NO

Comment

Representation ID: 16245

Received: 10/09/2025

Respondent: Liane Goryl

I&O_16826
Agree with Neston plan

Comment

Representation ID: 16309

Received: 29/09/2025

Respondent: People's Choice Group Project

I&O_16890
Yes see above