Comment

Representation ID: 21

Received: 05/07/2025

Respondent: Daniel Hind

I&O_23
The 5th Park and ride site in Chester should be removed - we're not uing the four that we already have

Comment

Representation ID: 156

Received: 14/07/2025

Respondent: Mike Mather

I&O_178
Delete the Sandbach line. Who'd use it? What would it cost? Add Winnington/Barnton Swing Bridge Recreational routeways should be managed by volunteers not the public purse apart from basic mowing etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 345

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

TA 2
I&O_376
Question TA 3 We strongly support the need for a Chester Western Relief Road. Its route needs to be determined and safeguarded before it is compromised. If CWaC wishes to increase the number of trips made by cycling, why are cycle lanes not included in policy approach TA 2?

Comment

Representation ID: 1296

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1401
bus service from Winsford to Chester needed

Comment

Representation ID: 1384

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Helsby Parish Council

I&O_1489
Helsby Railway Station and the Helsby/Mouldsworth rail corridor should be retained in this list.

Comment

Representation ID: 1430

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Les Smith

I&O_1535
Retained

Comment

Representation ID: 1667

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Wroblewski

I&O_1777

Comment

Representation ID: 2254

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Harding

I&O_2374
This a vital improvement:  N 5 Gadbrook Park Reintroduction of passenger services on the Sandbach Northwich line Safeguarding of a site for a new station at Gadbrook Park        

Comment

Representation ID: 2348

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2477
Hooton should be included in railways stations safeguarding land

Comment

Representation ID: 2746

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Thiemicke

Question TA 3
I&O_2912
If CWaC want to “ safeguard land for expansion/ infrastructure improvements around the following rail stations …”, why did they give permission for the building  (in the Green Belt) of a residential property on land immediately adjacent to the existing Acton Bridge station car park (which is currently too small, and is leading to irresponsible and dangerous parking on the highway) ?

Comment

Representation ID: 2888

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Lynn Turnbull

I&O_3062
N/A

Comment

Representation ID: 3116

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: National Highways

I&O_3290
The following interventions, if adopted into the Local Plan policy, may have an impact on the operation and safety of the SRN: STRAT7 (journey time improvements on A54 to M6 Junction 18) N5 (the reintroduction of passenger services and stations on the Northwich line) T1 (Chester Western Relief Road; Winsford–Middlewich link to M6) T2 (Park and Ride site at M53 Junction 12) T4 (safeguard from development disused rail corridors) These policies may impact, positively or negatively, on the SRN at their respective locations. We recommend that the Council engage early with National Highways where these interactions may occur to identify any mitigations to be factored into the development of any forthcoming proposals. We recommend that Cheshire West and Chester Council engage proactively with National Highways with regard to the required transport evidence (relating to the SRN) as the Local Plan is developed. This will ensure that any adverse impact to the SRN is mitigated and that growth promoted through the Local Plan is brought forward in a sustainable manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 3156

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3330
1. Stations that merit safeguarding for future expansion Winsford, Hartford, Northwich, Greenbank, Frodsham, Helsby, Lostock Gralam, and Delamere : These stations serve significant populations, are already reasonably well-used, and have realistic potential for improved connectivity and modal shift if investment is made. Safeguarding land around them for expansion or better facilities is therefore appropriate. 2. Stations that should not be safeguarded for expansion Acton Bridge : This is an unmanned rural station with very poor disabled access, extremely limited parking, and no supporting infrastructure. It is not located within easy walking or cycling distance of Weaverham or other settlements. Safeguarding land for expansion here risks creating a planning justification for unsustainable Green Belt release, particularly the proposed allocation at NOR11, which is wholly reliant on car-based access to this station. This is contrary to the sustainable transport hierarchy set out in TA 1 and to national policy which requires development to be focused in genuinely accessible locations. Cuddington : Although busier than Acton Bridge, Cuddington station is also constrained in terms of access, parking, and service frequency. Major expansion here would be unlikely to deliver significant modal shift and could encourage car-dependent commuting from surrounding villages, undermining climate and sustainability objectives. 3. Principles for modification Safeguarding should only apply to stations where there is clear evidence of deliverable demand, accessibility, and alignment with the sustainable transport hierarchy. Any safeguarding policy must explicitly exclude its use as a rationale for development in otherwise unsuitable or unsustainable locations (e.g. edge-of-village Green Belt sites). Investment should focus on strengthening urban transport hubs (Northwich, Hartford, Winsford) where genuine interchange opportunities exist, rather than on remote rural halts.

Comment

Representation ID: 3321

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3495
Hooton should be included in railways stations safeguarding land

Comment

Representation ID: 3700

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3882
N/A

Comment

Representation ID: 4268

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_4497
TA3 As mentioned earlier, no sign of improvements to ease congection through Frodsham. Also worth noting that The Weaver Way (assuming this is the riverside path from Sutton Bridge to Action Bridge) is frequently impassable (fallen trees, unrepaired gateways/crossings, "bull in feild" signage). Simarly, parts of the The Cheshire Circuit, near to Frodsham are poorly maintained.    Again, reality feels like it differs from the theory.

Comment

Representation ID: 4277

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4506
Little Leigh Parish Council broadly supports the local transport infrastructure priorities listed. We are particularly supportive of the inclusion of an upgrade of the Northwich / Winnington swing bridge, which is a notorious local bottleneck, even without the further developments proposed in the new Local Plan.   

Comment

Representation ID: 5251

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Morlidge

I&O_5615
All of them should be looked at.  Rail interchange west of Northwich where the Manchester/Chester and Crewe/Liverpool lines cross. Not mentioning Winnington Bridge is criminal given all the new developments that have happened and are planned.

Comment

Representation ID: 5437

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy TA2
I&O_5809
Yes, T2 (A56 Hoole Road Corridor / Park-and-Ride site), should be retained.

Comment

Representation ID: 5691

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Cowell

I&O_6063
Better pick-up & drop-off provision at Frodsham station is necessary.  Providing effective connectivity with a decent local bus service would be useful.  From Frodsham station, nmosty of the town is quite a difficult walk, particularly if carrying luggage or for older or infirm people.  The  recent changes to the car park have made the situation worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 5761

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6133
Retain all

Comment

Representation ID: 5942

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_6331
I support these.

Comment

Representation ID: 6289

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6696
14 | TA3 Are there schemes in TA2 (key priorities) that should be retained, modified, or deleted?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base Frodsham’s priorities should be retained but modified: Rail stations (T3) – urgent need for expanded facilities at Frodsham and Helsby stations, including parking, bus interchange, and cycle links. A56 corridor (T2) – should prioritise air quality and pedestrian safety improvements, not just vehicle flow. Recreational routeways (DM37) – Sandstone Trail, Weaver Way, and green links to Hob Hey Wood must be fully protected and enhanced.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Transport schemes must avoid cutting into Hob Hey’s wildlife corridors. Greenways and footpaths linking Hob Hey to the wider landscape should be safeguarded.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour’s HOPE plan highlights safe routes to schools, reduced A56 congestion, and cleaner buses. Priorities should reflect these.   🧠 Wider Context   Colenutt cautions that road-building often generates more traffic. Gallent stresses that schemes must be evaluated against wellbeing and carbon targets, not just flow.   📌 Important Considerations Retain rail station improvements but expand their scope. Modify A56 improvements to focus on air quality and walking/cycling. Retain and enhance recreational routeways. Delete or amend any road schemes that would increase car dependency without delivering sustainable alternatives.

Comment

Representation ID: 6652

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_7072
The following should be retained and prioritised: - Winnington Swing Bridge replacement as a critical constraint on Northwich. - Safeguarding for improvements at Hartford, Lostock Gralam, Cuddington, and Acton Bridge stations Schemes that should be modified: - Any new freight/industrial proposals must be tied to strong environmental safeguards.

Comment

Representation ID: 7030

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7499
Retention of Frodsham train station safeguards in Policy T3 Railway Stations

Comment

Representation ID: 7310

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7790
Maintained

Comment

Representation ID: 7934

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8423
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 8147

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8636
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 8148

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8637
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 8331

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8820
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)