Comment

Representation ID: 5422

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy GB1
I&O_5794
Yes, it would be better to separate out policy on development in the green belt from policy on development in the countryside; and to deal with landscape quality under a separate policy. Currently, the approach taken by the Council unhelpfully conflates spatial and environmental protection policies.   Further clarity or guidance is also required on what it is the Council thinks it is setting out to protect when it speaks of ‘rural character’.

Comment

Representation ID: 5502

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5874
es. Green Belt and countryside serve different purposes and need distinct policies. The Green Belt should remain focused on preventing urban sprawl, maintaining openness, and protecting the setting of towns and villages. The countryside policy should recognise rural character, landscape quality, biodiversity, and the importance of agricultural land. Combining the two risks confusion and weakens protections. A separate, stronger policy for each would provide greater clarity and confidence for residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 5749

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6121
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 5776

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Cross

I&O_6148
They should at least be harmonised - it appears that Green Belt policy has been more restrictive of development than policies supposed to protect the open countryside around smaller serttlements in the southern part of Cheshire West.

Comment

Representation ID: 5782

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6154
We must maintain our precious greenbelt areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 5930

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6318
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 6054

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6443
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 6281

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6688
🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base I support the principle of protecting Green Belt and countryside, but the approach must be strengthened to align with the FNHP. FNHP (Policies HCH1–HCH5, GSRL1) emphasises that Frodsham’s green setting, including Hob Hey Wood and the ASCV, is fundamental to its identity and wellbeing. The SEA evidence also confirmed that only small-scale brownfield-led growth is sustainable.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Hob Hey is an irreplaceable ancient woodland, Local Green Space, and Site of Biological Importance. It is part of wider ecological corridors. Policy must make clear that development adjacent to or affecting Hob Hey will not be permitted.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour’s HOPE for Frodsham and national manifesto commit to brownfield-first, permanent Green Belt protection, and wellbeing-led planning. The LSE warns that “grey belt” reclassification would erode trust and invite speculative sprawl.   🧠 Wider Context Bourland stresses that Green Belt provides carbon sequestration, flood defence, and health value. Colenutt demonstrates how the property lobby exploits weak Green Belt policy. Gallent and Eaqub argue that housing must meet local need, not speculative demand.   📌 Important Considerations I support the intent to protect Green Belt and countryside, but GB1 must be amended to: Explicitly reject “grey belt” weakening. Restate the permanence of Green Belt boundaries (NPPF 142). Require brownfield-first as a binding principle. Treat ancient woodland, biodiversity corridors, and high-grade farmland as absolute constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 6636

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_7056
Yes – Green Belt and wider countryside serve different purposes. Separate policies would improve clarity: - Green Belt: focus on preventing sprawl, settlement coalescence, and safeguarding open land. - Countryside: focus on intrinsic character, landscape, biodiversity, and supporting appropriate rural uses.

Comment

Representation ID: 6697

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7117
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 6965

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Grime

Question GB 2
I&O_7433
Yes there should be a seperate policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 7038

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hugo Deynem

I&O_7507
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 7110

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7582
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 7304

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7784
Yes - but clearly stting what cannot be developed

Comment

Representation ID: 7410

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Mark Stocks

I&O_7890
YES

Comment

Representation ID: 7550

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Traynor

I&O_8030
Yes, but only in so far as to strengthen those designations rather than weaken them.

Comment

Representation ID: 7928

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8417
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 8141

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8630
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 8321

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8810
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 8546

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9037
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 8737

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9230
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 8886

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9379
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 9008

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9501
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 9096

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Northstone

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9589
The separation of the policies will enable a bespoke approach to the Green Belt, increasing protection and placing greater importance on the purposes of the Green Belt (particularly the prevention of urban sprawl, coalescence of settlements, and protection of historic character). In turn, policy in relation to the countryside can be expanded to consider additional appropriate uses, and to place importance on the visual and ecological importance of the countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 9277

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9771
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 9520

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10015
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 9627

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10123
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 9736

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10232
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 9858

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10355
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision

Comment

Representation ID: 10036

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Horizon Cremation (Hooton) Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_10533
Yes, the Local Plan should include separate policies for countryside and Green Belt areas, as they serve distinct planning functions and are subject to different national policy frameworks and local considerations. Maintaining two distinct policies will also improve clarity for applicants, decision-makers, and communities, especially as the new Local Plan will be a single document.