Comment

Representation ID: 426

Received: 27/07/2025

Respondent: Clare Ballantyne Roberts

I&O_506
Yes. I have given the reasons many times in previous questions.

Comment

Representation ID: 427

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Ms Linda Smith

I&O_507
Yes, Green Belt is a precious resource in our crowded country.  The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy should be to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Comment

Representation ID: 750

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Planning Solutions Ltd

I&O_854
A separate policy framework for countryside and Green Belt areas should be maintained despite the introduction of grey belt designations, as these areas warrant distinct policy approaches reflecting their different levels of protection. Green Belt continues to receive heightened protection from development under national policy, with more stringent restrictions on what constitutes appropriate development. These constraints are fundamental to Green Belt's strategic purpose in preventing urban sprawl and maintaining settlement separation. Applying identical policy approaches to both Green Belt and general countryside areas would inappropriately extend these restrictive controls to areas not designated for such protection. The countryside outside Green Belt boundaries serves different planning functions and can accommodate forms of development that would be inappropriate within Green Belt. Rural areas not subject to Green Belt designation should retain greater flexibility for appropriate development that supports rural communities and economies without compromising the strategic purposes that Green Belt policy is designed to achieve. Rural areas have varying sensitivities and development pressures that cannot be effectively managed through a single policy framework. The grey belt designation adds another layer to this hierarchy but does not eliminate the need for distinct countryside and Green Belt policies that reflect their fundamental differences in planning status and protection levels.

Comment

Representation ID: 1292

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1397
no

Comment

Representation ID: 1424

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Les Smith

I&O_1529
Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 1636

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Roberta Pomponio

I&O_1746
Yes – separate policies would provide clarity and avoid conflating the different planning purposes and protections. Green Belt policy should focus on preventing urban sprawl, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and maintaining openness. Countryside policy should focus on protecting rural character, biodiversity, landscape quality, and sustainable land use. This separation would make it easier for decision-makers, developers, and residents to understand the distinct criteria and avoid policy “blurring.”

Comment

Representation ID: 1661

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Wroblewski

I&O_1771
There should be a separate policy and it should be valued. The countryside around Cuddington and Sandiway is a food producing area and it is essential to value it and preserve it. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1811

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Byrne

I&O_1921
Yes, green belt is special.  It deserves its own protections.

Comment

Representation ID: 2076

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2196
MCI considered that there should be separate policies for the countryside and Green Belt for clarity.

Comment

Representation ID: 2129

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2249
The Green Belt is a vital resource and once lost will never be recovered.  It’s part of the ‘green’ agenda and provides much needed space for health and wellbeing.  It could be developed by the Forestry Commission or some other such organisation that will protect the land, develop it to help with decarbonisation whilst continuing to provide for health and wellbeing.  A good example of this is how the former Frodsham Golf Club has been developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 2478

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2627
The two should be dealt with in the same policy to avoid  confusion 

Comment

Representation ID: 2578

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2731
We refer to our previous comments under SS14 in relation to the Green Belt.  We do not consider there should be a different policy for the Green Belt versus the countryside.  We are surprised there is no reference to the LNRS nature recovery objectives in this section on Countryside policy despite the statutory footing on which it has been prepared. We urge the Council to fully integrate the LRNS objectives into the Local Plan development, including (but not exclusively) for the countryside and Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2803

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Cooke

I&O_2973
Yes if it protects the green belt from development or other uses

Comment

Representation ID: 2862

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

I&O_3033
Yes, this should be included to ensure an appropriate level of focus and attention on the countryside and Green Belt areas where there is a large number of important natural habitats.

Comment

Representation ID: 2880

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Lynn Turnbull

I&O_3051
There is no need for a separate policy for the Green Belt.  It should not even be considered for housing, as was suggested at the meeting in Neston on the 19th August.

Comment

Representation ID: 2941

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Castle Green Homes

I&O_3115
Countryside and Green Belt designations perform different functions and although it is recognised that land can be included in both, there should be separate policies for each. The previous approach of a single policy could potentially lead to confusion as to whether a site was in the Green Belt or not.

Comment

Representation ID: 3134

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3308
Yes — there should be separate policies for the Green Belt and for the countryside. The Green Belt has a very specific and nationally defined purpose under the NPPF (five purposes including preventing sprawl, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and preserving the setting of historic towns). By contrast, the countryside policy framework is locally determined and is more concerned with protecting rural character, preventing incremental urbanisation, and supporting appropriate rural uses such as farming, tourism, and small-scale diversification. Combining the two into a single policy risks blurring these distinct purposes and creating ambiguity that developers could exploit. For example, introducing concepts like “grey belt” or suggesting replacement buildings could be treated similarly across countryside and Green Belt would undermine the nationally significant protections that the Green Belt enjoys. Reasons for separation: Clarity and legal soundness The NPPF sets out specific Green Belt tests (very special circumstances, exceptional circumstances for boundary changes). These are not interchangeable with countryside policies, which are discretionary at local level. A combined policy would lack clarity and could be open to challenge. Preventing dilution of Green Belt protections A combined policy risks creating a “one size fits all” approach in which weaker countryside tests are applied to the Green Belt. This would directly conflict with the December 2023 NPPF revisions , which continue to emphasise permanence of Green Belt boundaries. Tailored approach for rural areas Countryside policies should focus on rural character, scale, diversification, and cumulative change, including preventing creeping urbanisation of settlement edges (e.g. Weaverham and Acton Bridge). Green Belt policies should remain focused on safeguarding the strategic purposes of the designation, resisting inappropriate development, and avoiding reliance on new categories such as “grey belt”. Suggested approach: Introduce a separate Green Belt policy that restates national policy, resists “grey belt” or other weakening concepts, and commits to enduring boundaries. Introduce a distinct countryside policy that focuses on protecting rural character, ensuring replacement buildings are like-for-like, and supporting appropriate rural diversification without urbanisation. Cross-reference both policies to the spatial strategy so that development is first directed to brownfield and urban areas, reducing pressure on countryside and Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 3205

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Windsor

I&O_3379
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 3259

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3433
Yes - what is clssfied as 'countryside' certianly needs special protection that is not current afforded to it

Comment

Representation ID: 3406

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

Agent: Gary Halman Land and Planning Limited

I&O_3580
Yes. The current approach in the local plan of one policy addressing both Open Countryside and Green Belt has been a cause of confusion in the past. It would be better for there to be two distinct policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 3693

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3875
All greenbelt should be protected

Comment

Representation ID: 3983

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_4169
GB2 I see no reason for specific separate policies. Why can a single policy statement/document cover all aspects, reducing risk of future mis-alignment.

Comment

Representation ID: 4090

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4313
No, Little Leigh Parish Council's view is that Green Belt and countryside does not need a separate policy but its preservation must be ensured through the provisions in the overall policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 4142

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Bell

GB2
I&O_4371
There should be separate policies , as the requirements for developments in the Green Belt may be more precise and different  than those for the Countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 4473

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jon Cole

I&O_4736
Yes - the needs of an urban environment are different to those of a rural environment. How you expand capacity in the main urban areas will require a difference vision and strategy than for expanding capacity in rural communities. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4501

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4776
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4778

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: victoria rigby

I&O_5124
Yes to include regeneration and inclusivity of young families.

Comment

Representation ID: 4866

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5219
Yes. It makes sense to have policies for different area types.

Comment

Representation ID: 4876

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Wetherell

GB2
I&O_5229
Yes, I believe there should

Comment

Representation ID: 4937

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Norley Parish Council

I&O_5296
Yes there should be separate policies, because the requirements for development in the Green Belt should be more rigorous , precise, and inflexible as those in the countryside and may also need to differentiate from any Gray Belt