Comment

Representation ID: 8332

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8821
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 8556

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9047
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 8744

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9237
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 8893

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9386
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 9014

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9507
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Support

Representation ID: 9138

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Alvanley Parish Council

I&O_9631
Helsby Railway Station and the Helsby/Mouldsworth rail corridor should be retained.

Comment

Representation ID: 9162

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9655
TA 2 includes the T 2 A56 Hoole Road Corridor, which confirms the route for the corridor, and allocates land for a 5th park and ride site at the junction of the M53/A56. The Corridor runs along the southeastern boundary of the Site, with the park and ride site located within the Site to the northeast. The corridor and park and ride site should be retained. Early proposals for the Mannings Lane site allow for the continued allocation of the park and ride, and/or other transport hub solutions in this location should they be deemed more feasible. The proposals would also provide links from the Millenium Greenway to the County Sports Club to the northwest of the site. As such T 2 should be retained within the emerging Local Plan, with flexibility over size and transport service provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 9284

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9778
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 9526

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10021
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 9633

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10129
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 9742

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10238
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 9864

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10361
Delete : Chester Western Relief Road Railway stations (Delamere, Cuddington, Lostock Gralam, Acton Bridge)

Comment

Representation ID: 10573

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Damon Leonard

I&O_11071
bus stops and railways yes

Comment

Representation ID: 10895

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11393
It is noted that a great number of these projects are highways and road building projects that in some cases seems to run counter to the climate change emergency and approach identified in both the previous section as well as in the document overall (see answer to question SD1). Clearly there are strong possibilities provided by locating and supporting development adjacent to existing transport infrastructure and railway infrastructure and in this case these matters should clearly be brought up the agenda and allocations and spatial strategies designed to reflect the same.

Comment

Representation ID: 11321

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11819
Don't know 

Comment

Representation ID: 11644

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12142
Yes. The reintroduction of passenger services on the Sandbach Northwich line, all the schemes listed under T3 “railway stations” and T4 “railway corridors” should be retained. The road schemes listed should be dropped unless there is a critical road safety case to be made for them. We support in principle the safeguarding of land for a new station at Gadbrook Park. Whilst we have concerns about the future expansion of employment uses here, a new station would also help provide access to the existing site. CPRE Cheshire also strongly supports the retention and further improvement of the 12 recreational routes listed under DM37 “recreational routeways” (Shropshire Union Canal, Delamere Loop, Sandstone Trail etc.).

Comment

Representation ID: 11922

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tarporley Parish Council

I&O_12436
Tarporley Parish Council objects to the lack of any key local transport infrastructure priorities in the rural areas. Tarporley Parish Council requested that CW&C works with the Parish Council to deliver a Tarporley Transport Hub, see Tarporley Parish Council’s response to the Local Transport Consultation. (Appendix B)

Comment

Representation ID: 12127

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Knight

I&O_12641
TA3/4 Yes transport links should be improved.  At present Bus links to Cheshire Oaks and Chester are limited. I notice there is no provision for improvements at Neston Rail Station. I believe this has been looked at in the past, provision of a direct service to Chester and Liverpool would seem to be improbable. Another reason not to have big housing and commercial developments for Neston and Parkgate as road traffic would be increased.

Comment

Representation ID: 13135

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Network Rail

I&O_13654
The following rail-related projects have been identified as key local transport infrastructure priorities for delivery through the new Local Plan under Policy TA 2, identifying where land will be safeguarded for rail-related development: New railway bridge crossing between Rossmore and the town centre Reintroduction of passenger services on the Sandbach Northwich line Safeguarding of a site for a new station at Gadbrook Park Safeguards land for expansion/ infrastructure improvements around the following rail stations: o Winsford o Hartford o Northwich o Greenbank o Frodsham o Helsby o Lostock Gralam o Delamere o Acton Bridge o Cuddington Disused rail corridors safeguarded from development at: o Mickle Trafford-Shotton o Helsby/Mouldsworth o Adjacent New Warrington Road o Tattenhall-Whitchurch Additionally, other draft Plan policies refer to maximising opportunities for freight and product transport via rail such as Policy EP1 (Ellesmere Port), Policy EP2 (Origin – Stanlow and Thornton Science Park), and Policy EP3 (Origin – Protos). Network Rail supports policies which seek to safeguard land for future rail improvements and infrastructure and promote use of rail. It should be noted in the Plan however that the rail projects and improvements listed is not exhaustive and that other new or different opportunities could also arise over the course of the Plan. Network Rail therefore recommends that the Plan / draft Policy should include reference to the fact that due to the changing landscape of the rail network (with HS2 being a good example of an ongoing variable), the projects listed may be subject to change in the future and that other rail priorities may arise over the Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 13733

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Manchester Airport

I&O_14253
Where possible, any of the DM 37 Recreational Routes should be linked into wider sustainable transport infrastructure in the area so that the network can be expanded incrementally, providing choice for active travel for residents. Regarding current policy T3 Railway Stations, Manchester Airport continues to work with rail operators to see how we can improve access to Manchester Airport by rail. We would therefore welcome retention of the policy seeking to improve infrastructure at stations, which may enhance rail travel as an option for passengers seeking to access Manchester Airport from areas within Cheshire West and Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 13918

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

I&O_14438
Question TA 3 Are there any schemes listed above in TA 2 'Key local transport infrastructure priorities' that should be retained, modified, or deleted? With regard to the identification of infrastructure priorities that are promoted/safeguarded from development and the suggested policy approach  to review the existing transport infrastructure priorities, and the schemes listed in TA 2 'Key local transport infrastructure priorities', the Trust request that the canal and waterways listed under recreational routeways are retained to continue to contribute to the provisions of this policy.   The canal and towpath network should be identified for their potential infrastructure contribution to the above policy aims of TA1 and TA2.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14255

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14799
Dont know

Comment

Representation ID: 15609

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16168
No comments at this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 16087

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Kathy Ricketts

I&O_16668
Repair and maintain what we have got

Comment

Representation ID: 16144

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemary Parkinson

I&O_16725
Improve the current roads (pothole)

Comment

Representation ID: 16193

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Helen Wilman

I&O_16774
I have bus stops, but no buses.

Comment

Representation ID: 16249

Received: 10/09/2025

Respondent: Liane Goryl

I&O_16830
There should be a tram linking into the Trafford and Manchester lines.  There are bus stops, just not enough buses and they are too expensive to use.

Comment

Representation ID: 16313

Received: 29/09/2025

Respondent: People's Choice Group Project

I&O_16894
No but make existing stations more accessible.

Comment

Representation ID: 16373

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England

Agent: Deloitte LLP

I&O_16954
Generally, the Commissioners is supportive of the key local transport infrastructure priorities as identified. The Commissioners supports the inclusion of the Shropshire Union Canal within the strategic recreational routeways. As noted within the Commissioners’ response to question MISC3, their Site ‘Land South of Ellesmere Port’ provides an opportunity to create a destination for canal side leisure and learning activities along the Shropshire Union Canal. The Site Vision aims to utilise the canal to enhance links to the town centre by improving active travel routes along and to the Canal, whilst activating the canal-side for recreation to improve the health and wellbeing of new and existing Ellesmere Port residents. Overall, the Commissioners considers that the key local transport infrastructure priorities should be reviewed, in the context of new growth options for the borough, and supporting infrastructure needed in order to deliver such options. The Commissioners encourages this to be undertaken through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which it understands is currently being prepared. Subsequently, these priorities should be updated in order to ensure they represent the most relevant infrastructure schemes across the borough in the context of emerging growth options, rather than reiterating those identified within the adopted Local Plan.