Minerals supply
Question MS 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards minerals supply, as set out in MS 1 'Minerals supply' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
24 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support / agreement | Respondents broadly agree with the suggested approach to minerals supply. |
| Conditional support / need for clarity | Some support given but requests clarity on housing projections and demand assumptions. |
| Environmental / landscape protection | Concerns about protecting landscapes, hillsides, settlement identity, and ancient woodland (e.g., Hob Hey Wood). |
| Protection of waterways / canal infrastructure | One respondent requests to safeguard canals, heritage bridges, drainage, water quality and ecological corridors. |
| Prioritise recycled / secondary aggregates | One respondent calls for prioritising recycled materials over new quarrying in line with circular economy goals. |
| Concerns about quarry expansion / need for restoration | Requests that any extension or new sites be justified, mitigated and restored. |
| Public health / buffer zones | One respondent requests for mandatory distances between quarry sites and residential areas. |
| Cross‑boundary minerals supply issues | Another respondent states interest in continued cross‑boundary dialogue, especially from authorities reliant on CWAC supply. |
| Opposition / disagreement | Respondents explicitly disagreeing with the minerals approach. |
Question MS 2
If you are aware of other sites that may be suitable for minerals development, please provide details.
9 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for conserving historic environment | One respondent supports policies to conserve/enhance heritage and character. |
| General support / agreement | Another respondent simply agrees with the suggested approach. |
| Limit minerals development | One respondent states minerals development should be limited. |
| Opposition / concern about minerals scope, environmental protection and health and community impact controls | Another respondent raises strong concerns over minerals development scale and impacts; calls for protecting ancient woodland, habitats; extraction near these ruled out; requests health impact assessments, noise/ dust/ HGV limits, hours controls. |
| Strengthen community consultation / role of Neighbourhood Plans | One respondent requests stronger statutory role for neighbourhood plans in minerals decisions. |
| Need tests and alternatives | Extraction should only proceed if needs cannot be met through reserves/recycling. |
Proposals for minerals development
Question MS 3
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards proposals for minerals development, as set out in MS 2 'Proposals for minerals development' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
21 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support / agreement | Respondents expressing general support for suggested policy approach MS 2. |
| Historic environment and landscape protection | One respondent requests to conserve historic environment, heritage, landscape character and setting. |
| Geological risk / brine and rock salt concerns | Another respondent raises concerns about instability from historic brine and rock salt extraction affecting housing and transport. |
| Need for further evidence / coordination | Requests more discussions with National Highways and clarity on housing demand affecting need. |
| Support for restoration and aftercare | One respondent requests that suggested policy approach MS 2 must require high‑quality restoration and public access. |
| Policy wording changes | Another respondent suggests amendment to policy wording to include wider mineral types. |
| Detailed objections – Frodsham / safeguards | A major representation raising issues around buffers, ancient woodland, Health Impact Assessment, traffic, cumulative impacts. |
| Questions about cumulative impact assessment | Requests clarity on how cumulative impacts will be measured. |
Safeguarding
Question MS 4
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards minerals safeguarding, as set out in MS 3 'Safeguarding' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
17 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support / agreement | Simple agreement with suggested policy approach MS 3. |
| Request to specify safeguarded infrastructure | One respondent asks for clarity on which infrastructure is being safeguarded. |
| Support with caveat: brownfield / beneficial development | Another respondent suggests safeguarding should not block more beneficial development, e.g., housing on brownfield land. |
| Clarification re: Stanlow refinery applicability | One respondent requests clarity on whether MS 3 applies to Stanlow; notes safety and construction issues. |
| Opposition / disagreement | One respondent does not agree with suggested policy approach MS 3. |
| Detailed objection – Frodsham / biodiversity / community impact | A major objection including exclusions for ancient woodland, SSSIs, Ramsar sites; calls for time‑limited Mineral Safeguarding Areas, Health Impact Assessment, cumulative assessment and climate test. |
Oil and gas developments
Question MS 5
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards oil and gas developments, as set out in MS 4 'Oil and gas developments' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
21 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support | Simple agreement with suggested policy approach MS 5. |
| General opposition to oil and gas development | Several respondents rejecting oil and gas development entirely. |
| Climate / net zero incompatibility | Policy conflicts with climate goals and net‑zero trajectories. |
| Anti-fracking statements | Explicit statements opposing fracking. |
| Need stronger safeguards / exclusions | Requests to exclude sensitive areas (SSSI, Ramsar, ancient woodland). |
| Geothermal inclusion / overlap | One respondent requests policy extension to geothermal wells and technologies. |
| Noise/ traffic/ emissions concerns | Another respondents refers to minimising emissions, noise and traffic impacts. |
| Labour manifesto alignment / national policy shift | One respondent refers to Labour commitments to end new licences. |
| Detailed objection with evidence base (Frodsham) | An extensive objection referencing Frodsham Neighbourhood P;an, ancient woodland and climate tests. |
| Case law references (Environmental Impact Assessments) | One respondent citing need to assess downstream emissions; Horse Hill case. |
Restoration
Question MS 6
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards minerals restoration, as set out in MS 5 'Restoration' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
18 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support / agreement | Responses simply state “yes” or agreement suggested policy approach MS 6. |
| General opposition / reject extraction | Opposition to fracking, oil, gas, or minerals extraction. |
| Scepticism about adherence to conditions | One respondent is concerned that operators will not comply with planning conditions. |
| Conditional support – principles seem sound | One respondent supports but without detailed reading; conditional acceptance. |
| Support with requirement to retain overburden onsite | Another respondent requests that overburden must be used onsite for restoration. |
| Biodiversity / climate / community benefits required | A major representation calling for stronger guarantees on climate, biodiversity net gain, aftercare, enforcement, circular economy, employment. |
| Explicit No (simple) | Simple 'no' without elaboration. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.