5 Spatial strategy - summary of responses

Housing needs

Question SS 1

Is there any reason for the Council not to plan for delivering a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year? 

281 comments

Theme	Summary
Opposition to the 1,914 homes per year requirement	A very large proportion of respondents strongly oppose the government-calculated housing requirement. Objections focus on infrastructure capacity (roads, schools, GPs, utilities), environmental harm, loss of countryside, unsustainable growth in rural areas, lack of demonstrated local need, and overreliance on greenfield land. Many argue the target is arbitrary, unrealistic, or flawed in methodology.
Support for the housing requirement (often conditional)	A smaller but consistent set of respondents support the 1,914 requirement, believing it helps meet demand, improve affordability, support economic growth, and maintain land supply. However, most supporters emphasise strong conditions: brownfield-first, infrastructure delivery, high-quality design, and affordability.
Infrastructure capacity and “Infrastructure first”	Probably the single strongest cross-cutting theme. Respondents fear existing infrastructure is already overstretched and cannot support housing growth at this scale. Concerns emphasise: traffic congestion and road limitations; GP/dentist shortages; school capacity; drainage, wastewater, sewerage constraints; and emergency services response times. Many argue growth must be phased or stepped until infrastructure delivery is guaranteed.
Green Belt protection / brownfield first	Another dominant theme: respondents want the Local Plan to avoid Green Belt release and instead prioritise brownfield regeneration, empty buildings, town centre consolidation and previously developed land. Many cite biodiversity, landscape character, food production capacity, and flood mitigation as reasons to avoid rural expansion.
Housing need, market demand and empty homes	Large numbers challenge whether housing need is real. Recurrent points include that there are many houses already for sale; empty homes; ONS projections don’t justify the numbers; and that migration from outside the borough—not local need—drives demand. There are strong calls for the Council to prioritise: bringing empty homes into use; reusing long-term vacant stock; and reviewing holiday lets / Airbnb.
Affordability and housing mix	Respondents repeatedly stress that the issue is not the number of homes but the type, with calls for: more affordable homes; homes for local people; smaller/ downsizer homes; homes for social rent; supported housing for older people; and modern settlements with services.
Challenge the government’s target	Many respondents believe the Council should formally challenge the government’s requirement, citing: Green Belt constraints; infrastructure capacity; past over-delivery of housing; low local population/ household growth; ONS projections contradict national figure; and an unfair relative burden compared with neighbouring authorities.
Support for exceeding the minimum requirement (primarily developers/ industry view)	Developer and land promoter submissions overwhelmingly advocate for exceeding the 1,914 figure. Arguments include: needing to ensure land supply flexibility; market absorption; delivery resilience; economic growth alignment; affordable housing delivery; and avoiding 5‑year supply shortfalls. Many promote buffers of +10–20% and a longer plan period (20 years).
Environmental, climate and flood risk concerns	Many highlight climate change, flooding, biodiversity loss, and agricultural land protection. Concerns include: increasing surface water flood risk; Green Belt as natural flood management; carbon impacts of high growth; loss of habitats, ancient woodland, and landscape character; and sewer capacity, water resources.
Settlement-specific objections	Respondents frequently raise concerns about local impacts, particularly:  Frodsham / Helsby / Sutton Weaver: severe congestion, M56 diversion impacts, Sutton Weaver bridge bottleneck, flood risk Northwich / Davenham / Cuddington: overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, loss of agricultural land, cumulative impacts Winsford: perceived as taking disproportionate growth
Alternative strategies (stepped trajectory, empty homes first, regeneration-led)	Proposed alternatives to meeting the full target immediately, including: stepped trajectory (slow start, accelerate later); focus on regeneration corridors; reuse of empty/ derelict buildings; and phasing large sites to align with infrastructure.
Zero housing / near-zero housing arguments	A small minority call for zero growth, citing overpopulation, climate emergency, or “no local need at all.”

Question SS 2

Do you think the Council should consider a stepped housing requirement that plans for a lower level of housing delivery earlier in the plan period?

189 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for a stepped housing requirement	Strong support for lowering early‑period delivery to allow infrastructure to catch up, ensure sustainable growth, avoid overwhelming communities, prevent premature Green Belt release, respond to real market delivery rates, and enable reassessment over time.
Opposition to a stepped requirement (favouring consistent or higher early delivery)	Many respondents argue for immediate, front‑loaded delivery to meet urgent housing need, maintain affordability, avoid worsening shortages, ensure plan soundness, and maximise use of available deliverable sites. They argue a stepped approach risks under‑delivery and contradicts national policy.
Infrastructure capacity concerns	Respondents stress that schools, roads, GP capacity, drainage, rail services, waste systems, and utilities cannot support high early delivery. They argue phased development prevents overwhelming existing settlements and allows infrastructure to be delivered first.
Environmental / Green Belt / landscape protection	Commenters highlight risks to Green Belt, ancient woodland (e.g., Hob Hey Wood), ecological networks, countryside character, heritage assets and flood risk—often arguing stepped delivery reduces early pressure to release sensitive land.
Market feasibility / build-out rates / workforce	Many emphasise that construction capacity, skilled labour shortages, supply chain bottlenecks, absorption rates, sales rates, and developer behaviour make early high-volume delivery unrealistic; a stepped approach better aligns with market reality.
Anti‑housing / opposition to growth	A smaller group rejects additional housing entirely—citing congestion, loss of character, insufficient amenities, and a belief the area is already “full”. These views oppose both stepped and non‑stepped approaches.
Policy-based and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) arguments	Respondents reference the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Standard Method, Housing Delivery Test, national supply objectives, and local plan soundness – often arguing that a stepped approach conflicts with policy unless strongly justified, or conversely, that stepped delivery aligns better with new 2024 policy constraints.
Location-specific concerns (Frodsham, Neston, Tarvin, Winsford, etc.)	Respondents raise locally targeted objections/ support depending on constraints, Neighbourhood Plans, local infrastructure, heritage assets, and environmental sensitivities. Frodsham in particular shows strong resistance to high early allocations.
Housing mix, affordability & local needs	Comments call for tailoring housing types (family homes, starter homes, downsizer accommodation), improving affordability, reducing executive homes, and ensuring delivery matches demographic needs rather than general targets.
Employment, economic links and labour market	Housing strategy should align with economic development, labour availability, commuting patterns, and employment land provision. Some argue for job-led planning rather than housing-led growth.

Employment needs

Question SS 3

Is there any reason for the Council not to plan for delivering a minimum of 9.9 hectares of employment land each year?

111 comments

Theme	Summary
Under‑used / vacant employment land	Respondents consistently highlight that existing employment sites across the borough contain vacant units, outdated stock, or under‑used premises. They argue that the Council should prioritise bringing these sites back into productive use before allocating new land.
Green Belt and agricultural land protection	Many respondents strongly oppose allocating new employment land on Green Belt or high‑quality agricultural land. They emphasise environmental protection, food production, landscape character, and sustainable planning principles.
Questioning need / doubts about demand	A significant number of comments question whether 9.9 ha of employment land per year is genuinely needed, citing empty business parks, structural economic change, and lack of evidence of market demand.
Changing work patterns / rise of home working	Respondents note that hybrid working reduces the need for office floorspace. They argue that planning assumptions must reflect post‑pandemic behaviours and avoid oversupplying employment land.
Infrastructure capacity and transport constraints	Many comments express concern that new employment land will worsen congestion or be unsustainable without significant transport investment. Several emphasise locating growth where infrastructure exists.
Brownfield first principle	A recurring theme: prioritising brownfield redevelopment before any expansion onto greenfield or Green Belt land. Some respondents claim the Council is not enforcing this strongly enough.
Calls for higher land requirement (9.9 ha too low)	Landowners and developers frequently argue that the 9.9 ha land requirement underestimates real economic need, historic take‑up, and future growth opportunities – some citing evidence for 18 ha+ per year.
Request for flexibility (not a fixed annual minimum)	Some expressed concern that a fixed annual target is too rigid and could distort decision‑making. They recommend a more flexible, rolling or 5‑year monitoring approach.
Type and quality of jobs / economic strategy	Respondents highlight the importance of high‑quality, skilled, productive jobs – not just warehouses or logistics. They want employment land that supports green industries, local skills, and town‑centre regeneration.
Settlement‑specific objections (e.g. Frodsham, Willaston, Hooton)	Several responses strongly oppose employment land around Frodsham, Willaston or Hooton, citing congestion, flooding, landscape impact, and plentiful existing vacancies.
Coordination with housing, skills and population growth	Comments emphasise the need for employment land strategies to align with housing delivery, population change, skills development, and reducing commuting distances.
Strategic employment sites / industrial clusters	Developers and stakeholders call for large, strategic employment sites (5–25+ ha), especially near motorways, to support logistics, manufacturing, and inward investment.
Environmental considerations (biodiversity, net-zero, air quality)	Respondents reference ecological constraints, habitat protection, carbon reduction, and environmental limits as reasons to avoid excessive employment land growth or inappropriate locations.
Supportive (“Yes”) responses	A number of respondents simply agree with planning for at least 9.9 ha of employment land or support the general strategy without detailed comment.

Spatial strategy principles

Question SS 4

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards the spatial strategy principles, as set out in SS 3 'Spatial strategy principles' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?

232 comments

Theme	Summary
Brownfield‑first / urban regeneration priority	Strong and widespread support for prioritising redevelopment of previously developed land within settlements. Respondents emphasise regeneration, efficient land use, revitalisation of town centres, and avoiding unnecessary greenfield harm. Many see brownfield-first as essential to sustainable planning.
Objection to Green Belt release	A major theme. Many respondents strongly oppose any Green Belt development, seeing it as irreversible loss of valued countryside, a threat to settlement identity, landscape character, biodiversity, and a breach of national policy. Many state that the council must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” – and these are not met.
Infrastructure first (schools, roads, healthcare, transport, drainage)	Strong and repeated concern that infrastructure across many areas is already overstretched. Respondents say development should not proceed without prior investment in transport, utilities, drainage, water, schools, GP capacity, and emergency access. Notably highlighted problems: rural road capacity, M56 diversions, A56 congestion, bus service shortages, drainage and flooding concerns.
Environmental and landscape protection (air quality, ancient woodland, biodiversity, food-producing land, climate)	Respondents highlight risks to nature, species habitats, ancient woodland, green corridors, agricultural land, river catchments, and air quality. Several say development must not undermine climate commitments or cause cumulative environmental harm.
Settlement identity and avoiding urban sprawl	Strong opposition to settlement coalescence and “urban creep.” Concerns focus on maintaining village identity, preventing suburbanisation of rural areas, and respecting character, heritage assets, and landscape setting.
Rural transport and unsuitability of village locations	Many rural respondents state villages lack the transport, services, employment access, or road capacity to support significant growth. Public transport is described as infrequent, unreliable, or entirely absent. Rural B-roads are cited as unsafe for increased traffic.
Conditional support for Green Belt release (usually based on housing need evidence)	A smaller but consistent group argues that given the borough’s housing requirement and limited brownfield capacity, some Green Belt release will be necessary. They emphasise “sustainable extensions,” proximity to transport, and need for a strong evidence base (including a Green Belt review).
Affordable housing needs/ housing mix	Respondents emphasise the need for smaller homes, starter homes, apartments, homes for young people, older residents, and renters. Some say greenfield development does not deliver affordability; others call for stronger controls to secure affordable units.
Design, character, quality and place-making	Many express concerns about bland, repetitive housing estates. Calls for high-quality design, integration with settlement character, human‑scaled density, good public realm, green space, and examples from European urbanism.
Alignment with neighbourhood plans and local evidence	Strong emphasis that allocations should respect Neighbourhood Plans – particularly Frodsham, Winsford and other communities. Respondents argue Neighbourhood Plan priorities should be binding in spatial strategy decisions.
Strategic options including new town proposals	Some suggest that a new planned settlement may be a logical way to address growth while delivering infrastructure comprehensively, rather than dispersing development across constrained villages.
Concerns about “sustainable transport corridors”	Several respondents argue that designating areas near rural railway stations as “sustainable transport corridors” is unrealistic and leads to car-dependent development lacking schools and services.

Settlement hierarchy

Question SS 5

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards the settlement hierarchy, as set out in SS 4 'Settlement hierarchy' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?

242 comments

Theme	Summary
General support for settlement hierarchy	Many respondents broadly agree with having a settlement hierarchy and believe the general logic is sound – especially concentrating most development in larger, well‑serviced settlements.
Concerns about impact on smaller settlements	Strong concern that many smaller settlements and villages lack the infrastructure, character resilience, and transport connectivity to take further development. Many argue settlements are already over‑stretched and would suffer harm from even modest growth.
Frodsham‑specific objections	Very large cluster of objections regarding potential growth areas FRO01/ FRO02/ FRO03, with the following themes: bridge constraints, congestion, unsafe walking/ cycling conditions, inadequate services, Green Belt harm, and incompatibility with the Neighbourhood Plan.
Advocacy for more growth in smaller settlements	Often from developers/ landowners: arguing for proportional or modest growth to sustain rural services, meet housing need, and prevent stagnation; sometimes citing National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) rural vitality (paragraphs 83/84).
Requests to elevate settlement status	Many respondents argue specific villages warrant a higher classification because of facilities, transport links, or their functional role. Examples: Tarporley as Market Town; Willaston as Key Service Centre; Helsby elevated; Weaverham included.
Protection of Green Belt / brownfield‑first	Strong sentiment that Green Belt must not be released; brownfield land should be prioritised; Green Belt release seen as harmful, unnecessary, or contrary to climate/nature objectives.
Housing mix / affordability needs	Calls for more realistic housing types: affordable homes, small homes, starter units, family homes, and bungalows – rather than 4-5 bed executive homes aimed at maximising developer profit.
Infrastructure capacity concerns	A dominant theme across responses. Many argue that roads, GPs, dentists, schools, public transport, parking, and utilities are already failing – and new development would overwhelm capacity.
Climate, environment and nature emergency	Respondents emphasise biodiversity protection, carbon reduction, avoiding Green Belt loss, and respecting ancient woodland (e.g. Hob Hey Wood). Many cite the Council’s declared climate and nature emergencies.
Policy wording / definitions / evidence requirements	Requests for clarity on terms like “local needs,” “infill,” and “appropriate scale.” Concerns about vague policy being exploited by developers.

Question SS 6

Should all settlements have some level of development, regardless of whether they are identified in the settlement hierarchy? 

169 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure capacity and sustainability constraints	A very large proportion of respondents argue that many settlements simply cannot support further development due to existing constraints. They cite lack of GP capacity, school places, road congestion, poor public transport, drainage and flood risk issues, and overstretched utilities. These respondents emphasise that directing development to places without infrastructure risks unsustainable patterns, worsened car dependency, community decline, and reduced service quality. Many comments specifically point to Frodsham, Helsby, Willaston, Hooton and other rural settlements as already overburdened.
Protection of Green Belt, countryside and environment	Respondents emphasise strong opposition to any development in the Green Belt or environmentally sensitive landscapes. Users highlight the value of ecological networks, ancient woodland, rural character, wildlife corridors and the need to protect carbon sinks such as peatlands. Many state that incremental encroachment into the countryside is irreversible and contradicts sustainability and climate objectives.
Support for some or all settlements having development (with limits)	A sizeable group supports development in all settlements, but emphasises proportionality. These respondents agree that small-scale, sympathetic development such as infill, reuse of brownfield land, and local-need housing can help sustain rural communities, maintain services, and improve housing mix.
Desire for fairer, balanced growth across Cheshire West and Chester	Many feel that growth should be shared more equitably and not be disproportionately focused on major towns like Winsford, Chester, Northwich, Ellesmere Port. Respondents argue that some central and eastern settlements have carried too much growth over past plan periods while others have avoided significant change. Balanced distribution is seen as more politically acceptable and sustainable.
Protection of village character, heritage and settlement identity	Many respondents fear that development – particularly large or poorly designed schemes – will undermine historic character, rural identity, conservation areas, and cultural distinctiveness. Some express concern about urban sprawl merging villages. The preservation of settlement pattern is a repeated priority.
Development should be based on local housing need only	Respondents argue that development in smaller settlements should occur only where there is a proven local need – particularly affordable housing for young people, rural workers, or families with a village connection. They reject arbitrary numerical allocations.
Transport limitations and unsustainable travel patterns	Comments frequently reference inadequate bus services, reliance on cars, congested A-roads (especially A56), and the fragility of the M56 corridor. Development in poorly connected settlements is seen as incompatible with carbon and sustainability objectives.
Strong opposition to development in certain settlements (especially Frodsham and similar)	A specific group of respondents repeatedly objects to further development in Frodsham (and sometimes Helsby). They highlight overloaded transport, high school capacity issues, GP shortages, M56 diversion traffic, flood risk, and threats to woodland. This is one of the most location-specific thematic clusters of comments.
Support for new settlements / new town concept	Some respondents argue that building a new town – rather than incremental expansion of multiple villages – would allow holistic planning, proper infrastructure delivery, and avoid overburdening existing communities.
Evidence-based, flexible, case-by-case approach	Respondents in this theme argue against rigid application of the settlement hierarchy. They assert that development decisions should respond to evidence, local constraints, sustainability credentials, and the characteristics of each settlement.
Alignment with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) / national policy arguments	Many respondents reference the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) directly – especially paragraphs 83, 84, 105, 110. They argue either that small settlements should be allowed some development to support nearby services, or conversely that the Green Belt must not be sacrificed to meet housing numbers.

Question SS 7

Do you think the new Local Plan should contain place-based policies for smaller settlements such as: Cuddington and Sandiway; Farndon; Helsby; Kelsall; Malpas; Tarporley; Tattenhall; and Tarvin?

134 comments

Theme	Summary
General support for place‑based policies	Strong agreement that place‑based policies should be included for smaller settlements. Many see them as essential to guide future development, respond to local needs, and support rural sustainability.
Conditional support (safeguards required)	Support is often conditional – policies must protect character, prevent inappropriate growth, align with Neighbourhood Plans, ensure infrastructure capacity, and reflect community priorities and Neighbourhood Plans.
Concerns about infrastructure constraints	A major theme: Many settlements already lack capacity – roads, schools, healthcare, public transport, parking, utilities. Respondents warn further development could worsen congestion, road safety, and increase service pressures.
Need to protect local settlement character, rural identity and heritage	Many responses emphasise that development must preserve rural identity, historic cores, built form, distinctiveness, Conservation Areas, and natural landscapes. Place‑based policies should avoid “generic” design and respect settlement uniqueness.
Importance of neighbourhood plans	Strong view that Neighbourhood Plans should lead or form the basis of place‑based policies. Some argue Local Plan policies should not override democratically adopted Neighbourhood Plan policies.
Opposition to further development	A minority expresses clear opposition to any further development – citing rural character loss, infrastructure limits, traffic, and desire to keep settlements small.
Climate change and sustainability concerns	Concerns include: car‑dependent locations increasing emissions, lack of public transport, building on agricultural land, and conflict with climate mitigation aims.
Requests to add / reclassify settlements	Respondents request adding other settlements (e.g., Frodsham, Weaverham, Hooton, Wincham, Mouldsworth), reclassifying some (Tarporley to a Market Town) or differentiating settlements with higher service levels.
Strategic approach to distribution of growth	Many argue growth should not be “spread everywhere” but aligned with settlement capacity, service provision, employment access, and spatial sustainability. Others call for clear housing targets per settlement.
Green Belt and countryside protection	Respondents want strong protection for the Green Belt and countryside, opposing large extensions onto open rural land, and emphasising brownfield‑first development.

Question SS 8

Do you agree that in smaller settlements, the character should be protected and development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure?

219 comments

Theme	Summary
General agreement / support	Broad support for protecting settlement character and preventing development that outstrips services. Many simply answered “Yes” or “Agree” without elaboration.
Infrastructure capacity concerns (schools, GPs, roads, transport)	Strong feeling that many smaller settlements already lack adequate services – GPs, schools, public transport, water, power, and especially roads. Many argue new development would overwhelm already stretched resources.
Protection of rural or village character	Many respondents feel strongly that suburban-style estates, loss of countryside edges, and erosion of historic settlement character are major risks if growth is not tightly controlled.
Preference for focusing growth in larger settlements / on brownfield land	Many argue development should go to places with better infrastructure – towns, Key Service Centres, urban areas – and to brownfield sites first, not villages.
Balanced or conditional/ managed growth (growth okay if infrastructure added)	Respondents here are not against new development but emphasise that investment must accompany development. They prefer a planned, infrastructure‑first approach rather than blanket restriction.
Anti‑development / no more growth positions	A strong minority oppose any further development, arguing settlements are already overdeveloped, at capacity, or that character has already been lost.
Concerns over Transport (Road Congestion, Safety, Public Transport Limitations)	Traffic congestion, unsafe narrow rural roads, lack of buses, parking pressures, and fears of car‑dependent development are recurring issues.
Environment / landscape / Green Belt concerns	Strong concern about loss of countryside, wildlife habitats, heritage landscapes, and Green Belt. Several stress the irreplaceability of green buffers and natural settings.
Settlement‑specific issues raised	Detailed concerns relating to settlements such as Frodsham, Moulton, Helsby, Malpas, Weaverham, Sandiway/Cuddington, and Farndon.
Comments opposing the principle (disagree / encourage growth)	Respondents who disagree with restricting smaller settlements argue that development can fund upgrades, support rural vitality, and should not be blocked by “current” capacity levels.

Spatial strategy options

Question SS 9

Have circumstances changed since the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One), that would now justify Green Belt release?

226 comments

Theme	Summary
Opposition to Green Belt release (“No”)	Respondents argue strongly that circumstances have not changed since the adoption of Local Plan Part One in a way that justifies Green Belt release. They emphasise the permanence of Green Belt loss, environmental harm, biodiversity decline, climate concerns, settlement character, inadequate infrastructure, recent Neighbourhood Plans, and the availability of brownfield sites and underused properties. Many express fear that any release would set a precedent for further erosion.
Support for Green Belt release (“Yes”)	Respondents supporting Green Belt release typically reference the significant uplift in housing need under the Standard Method, changes in national policy, the introduction of grey belt into national policy, the age and out‑of‑date nature of the current Local Plan Part One (adopted in 2015), and the limited brownfield capacity across the borough. Many argue that without some Green Belt release the plan would be unsound, unviable, or unable to support employment growth.
Conditional / limited Green Belt release	These respondents are neither fully for nor fully against Green Belt release. They argue that if release is necessary, it must be tightly controlled, and follow a hierarchical, criteria‑based approach: Prioritising Grey Belt Focusing on sustainable, transport‑linked sites Using small parcels, not large new settlements Avoiding harm to high‑value landscape Only after brownfield and vacant property options are exhausted
Infrastructure, transport, and public services	These responses highlight concerns that existing rural or semi‑rural infrastructure – roads, junctions, public transport, schools, healthcare, and drainage – cannot accommodate additional development. Many argue that Green Belt release would worsen congestion or flooding, increase car dependency, and place unsustainable pressures on existing communities.
Settlement character, heritage, landscape	Respondents emphasise the importance of maintaining the distinct identity and separation of villages and towns. Many refer to historic landscapes (e.g., Chester’s setting), valued views, agricultural land, and heritage assets. Green Belt is seen as essential to preventing urban sprawl and the “merging” of places.
Climate, biodiversity, and environmental protection	Respondents frequently cite the climate emergency, wildlife decline, carbon sequestration, flood risk, and the need to protect natural habitats. Some emphasise irreplaceable habitats (e.g. ancient woodland, ecological corridors), while others note the Green Belt’s role in flood mitigation and climate resilience.
Grey belt	A major new theme following the updated 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Supporters argue that grey belt provides a structured and policy‑compliant method to release lower‑value Green Belt land that does not strongly meet Green Belt purposes. Opponents argue that grey belt risks being misused or becoming a loophole for developers. Many emphasise sequencing: previously developed land first, then grey belt, followed by other Green Belt.
Housing affordability, need, and delivery	Supportive responses argue that higher housing numbers (1,914 dpa) require additional land release. They highlight severe affordability issues, backlog of unmet need, the need for a balanced distribution of growth, and limitations of brownfield capacity. Some note that not addressing the need could worsen inequality, stagnate economic growth, or render the plan unsound.

Question SS 10

Are there any other considerations that we should take account of in relation to future Green Belt policy?

154 comments

Theme	Summary
Protect the Green Belt / strong opposition to release	The Green Belt is considered essential for landscape protection, community wellbeing, environmental quality, village identity, and long‑term sustainability. Many respondents argue it should be retained “at all costs” and that release is irreversible.
Brownfield first and use of empty homes	Strong belief that all brownfield land and empty homes must be used before any Green Belt is considered. Brownfield capacity is seen as under‑used and essential to sustainable growth.
Grey belt – interpretation and concerns	Views are split between cautious support (where harm is low) and strong concern that "grey belt" may become a loophole for new development in the Green Belt. Many call for accurate definition and strict application.
Infrastructure limitations (roads, schools, health, utilities)	Many communities state current infrastructure is already failing capacity tests – public transport, schools, roads, GPs, dentists and utilities cannot support major new development.
Environmental and biodiversity protection	Respondents highlight the importance of habitats, wildlife corridors, ancient woodland, floodplains, and climate resilience. Loss of natural environment is viewed as permanent and harmful.
Agricultural land and food security	Strong view that farmland is a national asset, critical to UK food production and should not be sacrificed for housing. Several stress that agricultural loss is irreversible.
Settlement identity and preventing coalescence	Concerns that development will merge villages, erase boundaries, damage rural character, and undermine community cohesion. Protecting settlement separation is seen as vital.
Climate change, carbon and resilience	Comments highlight the role of the Green Belt in carbon sequestration, cooling, flood mitigation and climate adaptation. Development is seen as conflicting with climate duties.
Heritage, landscape and rural character	Focus on conserving heritage settings, historic landscapes, ancient woodland and the wider rural environment which gives Cheshire its identity.
Calls for a Green Belt review / boundary reassessment	Some respondents request an evidence‑based Green Belt review; others warn that reviews could be misused. Calls for clarity, long-term boundaries and consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Support for limited / targeted Green Belt release	A smaller cluster of respondents support selective, evidence-based release – generally grey belt or low‑performing parcels, often near sustainable transport or settlements.
Community wellbeing and access to green space	Respondents emphasise the health, recreational, mental‑wellbeing and social benefits of countryside access, footpaths, views and open green spaces.
Transport and sustainable travel	Comments stress limited bus services, unsafe roads, car dependency, and the need to link development to active travel and public transport corridors.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) / national policy alignment	Several stress strict compliance with revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024/25), including Grey Belt, exceptional circumstances, safeguarding, and correct plan‑making procedure.

Question SS 11

Please select the option which is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester: 

1. Option A - Retain the Green Belt
2. Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development
3. Option C - Sustainable transport corridors
4. None of these

1440 comments

a. Option A - Retain the Green Belt	b. Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development	c. Option C - Sustainable transport corridors	d. None of these	No clear preference/ blank
1129 (78%)	91 (6%)	80 (6%)	32 (2%)	108 (8%)

Theme	Summary
Strong support for Option A – Retain the Green Belt	This is the dominant theme across representations. The overwhelming majority strongly oppose Green Belt release anywhere in the borough, supporting an approach that protects existing Green Belt; prioritises brownfield land; prevents urban sprawl; and preserves separation between settlements (fears that new allocations would merge villages (e.g. Weaverham–Northwich, Chester–Mickle Trafford). Respondents cite environmental protection, wildlife habitat preservation (concern about impacts on Hob Hey Wood, ancient trees, biodiversity corridors), climate‑related concerns, flood risk, loss of agricultural land/ food security, loss of village character (development said to undermine historic villages like Frodsham, Weaverham, Christleton, Neston), and substantial infrastructure deficiencies (GPs, schools, roads, sewage). High pressure on local roads (e.g., A41, A49, A556, Winnington swing bridge). Many emphasise that Green Belt loss is permanent and should only occur in genuine exceptional circumstances. Support referencing National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)/ policy referencing paragraphs 138–147 on Green Belt and “exceptional circumstances”. Some accept potential limited infill development but oppose strategic-scale release.
Support for Option B – Follow current Local Plan distribution	Those favouring Option B see it as a more balanced and proportionate approach that spreads development across settlements without overwhelming any single settlement. It is a fairer approach than Option A or C; Infrastructure already aligned to grow in certain towns; and Larger settlements with existing services are better placed to absorb growth. Many planning professionals and parish councils favour B or a modified “Option D,” arguing it provides deliverability, continuity with existing frameworks, and avoids the extreme concentration that Option A would impose on Winsford.
Support for Option C – Sustainable transport corridors	Supporters favour aligning new development with public transport routes, stating that locating homes near rail/bus services promotes climate goals and reduces car dependency. Supports investment in sustainable transport and reduces emissions, and helps ensure more even distribution across the borough. However, even supporters frequently note that Option C is not viable because many local stations lack frequency, accessibility, or parking (especially Acton Bridge, Cuddington, Mouldsworth, Helsby, Delamere, Frodsham).
Opposition to All Options (A/B/C) / preference for hybrid or “Option D”	Respondents in this category argue that none of the options represent a sound, fair or sustainable strategy. Common views include: housing numbers are too high; options ignore rural constraints; sustainable transport corridors are unrealistic; or a hybrid approach is required to balance growth with environmental and infrastructure limitations. All options overload certain places (Winsford, Northwich, Weaverham, Frodsham). Desire for smaller-scale growth spread across all villages that reflects local needs (e.g., need for smaller, affordable homes). Professional submissions often propose a bespoke “Option D” with targeted growth and selective Green Belt review.
Site‑Specific objections (Weaverham, Frodsham, Barnton/Anderton, Neston/Parkgate, etc.)	Large volumes of residents object to specific allocations relating to Frodsham, Weaverham, Barnton, Neston, Sandiway/Cuddington, Christleton, Tarporley, Acton Bridge, Winsford, Northwich. Main concerns include: inadequate local roads; dangerous junctions; narrow lanes; overloaded bridges; school and GP capacity; ancient woodland adjacency (e.g., Hob Hey Wood); wildlife corridors; and risk of settlement coalescence. Many argue these areas have already taken substantial growth. Examples of recurring issues: Chester fringe (CH01–CH06): loss of setting, flooding concerns, Wrexham Road development impacts, and traffic pressure at A41/A55 Weaverham (NOR10–NOR12): heavy opposition linked to severe road constraints, school/GP pressure, proximity to ancient woodland Frodsham (FRO01/FRO02/FRO03): impact on ancient woodland (Hob Hey Wood), A56, M56 diversions and congestion, unsustainable development scale Barnton/Anderton: Winnington Bridge congestion, inadequate infrastructure, flooding, wildlife-rich fields and agricultural land Neston/Parkgate: large cluster opposing Green Belt allocations around NEP01-06 referencing tidal flooding, wildlife corridors, lack of transport capacity Sandiway/Cuddington: weak bus/train service; road safety issues; village already exceeded earlier allocations Winsford: resentment at disproportionate allocation under Option A (10,000+ homes) Acton Bridge Strong rejection of Option C due to unsustainable rail service and Green Belt.
Infrastructure concerns (Cross‑cutting theme)	Infrastructure deficits are one of the most consistent themes across all options. Respondents report: GP/dental shortages; school oversubscription; roads at capacity (heavy emphasis on congestion at A49/ A556, A56 Frodsham, Winnington bridge, Chester approaches); flood and drainage problems; poor bus/rail services; unsafe pedestrian routes; insufficient utilities; and lack of parking at stations. Many consider infrastructure already “failing,” making new large‑scale growth untenable.
Environmental, ecological and climate concerns	Many representers highlight ecological networks, habitat and wildlife loss, impacts on ancient woodland, wildlife corridors, protected species (bats, newts, birds of prey), landscape character, and climate‑change mitigation. Concerns include soil erosion, farmland protection, flood risk, carbon storage loss, and pressures on sites like the Dee Estuary, Hob Hey Wood, and Anderton Nature Park.
Concerns about excessive growth in Winsford under Option A	Respondents emphasise that Option A forces 10,000+ homes onto Winsford, potentially increasing the town’s population by more than 60%. They argue this is unfair, disproportionate, undeliverable, and would worsen deprivation and overwhelm local infrastructure. Many prefer Option B or C as more equitable.
Consultation process concerns (accessibility / transparency)	Numerous submissions state the consultation portal was difficult, documents overly technical, deadlines unclear, or publicity poor — especially where residents only learned of proposals late (often via Facebook or neighbours). Several note that consultation events were scheduled at inconvenient times or locations.
Housing need, brownfield first and policy consistency arguments	Respondents argue new housing should prioritise brownfield regeneration, empty homes, higher density development, and town‑centre intensification before considering rural release. Some raise doubts about local housing need evidence, citing government targets, while others highlight the UK’s food‑security concerns when farmland is lost. Professional planners often stress NPPF 2024 Green Belt policy and sustainability requirements.

Question SS 12

Do you have any alternative spatial strategy options that you would like to suggest?

119 comments

Theme	Summary
Brownfield first / reuse of buildings	Strong preference for prioritising brownfield land, vacant buildings, regeneration sites and re‑use opportunities before considering any greenfield release. Emphasis on enforcing action on unused properties and stalled sites.
Green Belt protection / objection to release	Calls to avoid Green Belt development entirely or minimise release to exceptional circumstances only. Concerns about loss of landscape, character, wildlife, and community identity.
New settlements / new town proposals	Support for strategic, master-planned new settlements or towns to avoid piecemeal expansion and protect existing communities. Often linked to transport connectivity.
Hybrid options (Option B + C)	Preference for combining settlement‑hierarchy growth with sustainable transport‑corridor growth. Seen as more balanced, deliverable, and sustainable than relying on one option alone.
Infrastructure‑first approach	Emphasis that infrastructure (schools, GPs, transport, utilities) must lead development rather than lag behind it. Concerns that current settlements already lack capacity.
Transport‑led strategy (rail / active travel)	Advocates focusing growth where strong transport links exist, especially rail corridors, or prioritising walking and cycling in selecting sites.
Opposition to additional development	Broad objections to further housing due to congestion, strain on services, loss of character, or belief that local areas have already “done their bit.”
Housing affordability / anti‑investment housing	Concerns about homes being used as investments, Airbnb proliferation, or developers failing to deliver affordable housing. Calls for community‑centred housing policies.
Climate change and environmental protection	Comments emphasising climate considerations, environmental resilience, biodiversity protection, and safeguarding ancient woodland and natural assets.
Balanced distribution across settlements	Preference for spreading development across many settlements based on capacity, avoiding over‑concentration and allowing smaller communities to remain viable.
Settlement‑specific support or objection	Settlement‑oriented feedback – supporting or resisting growth in particular places based on character, capacity, local issues, or status in the hierarchy (Frodsham, Tarporley, Neston, Middlewich / salt towns, Wincham / Weaverham, Chester)
Green Belt review / grey belt release	Support for a structured Green Belt review, targeted release where land contributes weakly to Green Belt purposes, or use of “grey belt” classification.

Question SS 13

Aside from those settlements identified in the spatial strategy options, should new housing or other development be allowed in other settlements? If so, please specify what type of development? For example, infill etc?

115 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for infill development (general, small‑scale, or limited only)	There is strong overall support for infill development across many respondents. Most favour modest, context‑sensitive infill within existing boundaries, often coupled with conditions such as respecting settlement character, avoiding amenity loss, or ensuring availability of infrastructure.
Brownfield first / prioritise previously developed land (PDL, grey belt)	A widely shared view is that brownfield land should be exhausted before greenfield is considered. Many argue this is essential to safeguard countryside and Green Belt, with several highlighting grey belt and redundant sites as opportunities.
Opposition to infill – concerns about character, wildlife, open space, settlement identity	Many respondents oppose infill altogether or in sensitive areas, citing risks such as damaging rural character, closing important gaps, harming wildlife corridors, and changing long-established settlement form.
Avoidance or protection of greenfield and Green Belt (avoiding release)	A strong theme is the defence of countryside and Green Belt. Responses warn against releasing greenfield land, emphasising original Green Belt purposes, environmental harms, and fear of precedent-setting loss.
Support for limited/ appropriate or needs-based development in smaller settlements	Many respondents support allowing only small, proportionate, needs‑based development in smaller villages – especially infill, conversions, or edge sites with strong sustainability credentials.
Infrastructure‑led/ capacity‑led approach (roads, GP access, schools, transport)	Respondents emphasise that development must align with available infrastructure – transport, schools, GP provision, drainage and road networks. Some argue that many rural settlements are already at or beyond capacity.
Sustainability/ transport‑led concerns (avoid car‑dependency) and need for transport links	Many argue development should be directed to locations with good public transport and walkable access to services. Car‑dependent rural growth is seen as harmful and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Support for affordable, local‑needs, or community‑led housing	Several responses stress that any development outside main settlements should prioritise affordable housing, social rent, or community‑led schemes for people with strong local connections.
Mixed views or no specific comment	A small number of respondents indicate uncertainty, lack of detail to comment, or express only partial agreement without clear direction.

Option A

Question SS 14

Do you feel that Option A is an appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan?

284 comments

Theme	Summary
Strong support for Option A / retain the Green Belt	A very large proportion of respondents strongly support Option A. They see Green Belt protection as essential to preventing urban sprawl, preserving Cheshire’s rural character, protecting habitats, ensuring separation of settlements, and maintaining the identity of villages. Many emphasise long-term environmental benefits, wellbeing, agricultural land protection, and consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) brownfield‑first and exceptional‑circumstances tests. Numerous respondents express distrust of a “hybrid option” and insist that any combination with other strategies undermines Option A.
Opposition to Option A / need for Green Belt review or balanced approach/ sustainable distribution	These respondents argue that Option A is too restrictive and not aligned with government housing targets. They believe retaining all Green Belt prevents development in the most sustainable settlements (e.g. Chester, Ellesmere Port), forces excessive growth into rural areas with poor services, and fails to acknowledge “grey belt”. They also argue that a Green Belt review is required to meet mandatory housing numbers and create a balanced pattern of growth.
Concerns about overdevelopment in Winsford and Northwich	Many respondents object to the scale of development proposed in Winsford (11,000+ homes) and Northwich. Concerns include: inadequate transport links, severe congestion, lack of school and healthcare capacity, long distances to rail infrastructure, damage to rural character, and fears of repeating historic failures of rapid expansion. Some also question the deliverability of large-scale “urban extensions” citing a history of stalled or slow delivery on current allocations (e.g. Station Quarter).
Brownfield-first / avoid ‘green’ land that isn’t Green Belt	Respondents emphasise that brownfield land must be fully utilised before any release of Green Belt or undeveloped “green land”. They argue that non–Green Belt countryside and valued local green spaces must not be treated as the default alternative. Comments highlight community value of green spaces, ecological importance, and opportunities for regeneration in urban centres.
Infrastructure capacity concerns	Respondents warn that Option A (and in some cases any significant development) will overwhelm existing infrastructure. Issues include road congestion (especially A41, A56, and A556 areas), unsafe rural roads, oversubscribed schools and GP surgeries, inadequate public transport, and pressure on utilities. Many call for “infrastructure first” delivery or highlight historic under‑investment.
Support for limited / targeted Green Belt (or grey belt) release	This group accepts that some Green Belt release may be necessary but argues it should be small‑scale, targeted, and focused on lower-value Green Belt (often described as “grey belt”). They believe this can enable sustainable expansion of well‑connected settlements, help meet mandatory housing targets, and avoid forcing growth into unsuitable locations.
Environmental / wildlife / landscape protection	Respondents raise concerns about impacts on wildlife, habitats, ecological corridors, ancient woodland, farmland, floodplain functions, carbon storage, and recreational landscapes. Several comments highlight that “Green Belt” is undervalued as ecological infrastructure and that loss of agricultural land threatens long-term food security.
Protecting community identity and village separation	Many respondents fear development will merge settlements, erode village character, and undermine historic identities – especially around Chester, Guilden Sutton, Waverton, Helsby, Frodsham, and other rural villages. Respondents stress that Green Belt is essential for maintaining separation, safeguarding heritage, and supporting community cohesion.
Concerns about housing targets and growth pressure	Some respondents argue housing numbers are unrealistically high or based on flawed methods. Others worry that the council is being required to overdeliver relative to actual need, causing inappropriate development pressure on rural and Green Belt areas.
Area‑specific issues (Frodsham, Helsby, Acton Bridge, Christleton, etc.)	Comments highlight unique local concerns: Frodsham promotes a brownfield‑only approach; Helsby opposes large allocations; Acton Bridge objects to its classification as a “sustainable transport corridor”; Some respondents state that Christleton has several grey belt parcels with previous planning history; Neston and Parkgate raise ecological corridor concerns; Cuddington and Sandiway worry about crossing natural boundaries such as the A556.

Question SS 15

If you do not feel that Option A is an appropriate spatial strategy option, are there any changes that you could suggest?

84 comments

Theme	Summary
Brownfield‑first development	Strong and repeated preference for prioritising brownfield and underused land before considering any greenfield or Green Belt development. Respondents argue this protects rural character, supports sustainable regeneration, and prevents unnecessary land loss while encouraging use of derelict/ urban sites.
Protection of the Green Belt / opposition to release	Many respondents stress that the Green Belt should be retained to protect rural character, prevent coalescence, support biodiversity, ensure food production, manage flooding, and protect mental wellbeing. Strong opposition to large‑scale release or expansion into rural settlements.
Support for selective / planned Green Belt (including grey belt) release	Some respondents believe selective release – especially of “grey belt” – is necessary to meet Government housing targets, support economic development, or create well‑connected sustainable extensions. These comments argue for evidence‑based, targeted release rather than blanket protection.
Infrastructure before housing (“infrastructure‑first”)	A significant recurring theme: respondents state that major allocations must not proceed without firm commitments to schools, GP/dental capacity, road improvements, surface water management, and sustainable transport. They note current services are already stretched, with some citing recent failures.
Spatial strategy – views on Option A	Opinions split: some support Option A (retain the Green Belt) as most sustainable; others see it as too restrictive or impractical given housing need. Several propose modifications or a hybrid of Options B and C, or argue Option A should be discounted entirely.
Settlement‑specific issues (distribution of growth)	Respondents frequently state that larger towns (Winsford, Northwich, Chester, Ellesmere Port) are more suitable for major development due to services and jobs, while rural villages lack capacity. Others warn these same towns (especially Northwich and Winsford) already face congestion or infrastructure strain. The need to protect smaller rural settlements (Tarporley, Malpas, Frodsham, Tattenhall) is also raised as a concern.
Settlement identity / avoiding coalescence and landscape protection	Comments warn that excessive growth – especially in Northwich and surrounding villages – risks settlement merging, loss of identity, and landscape harm. Some request formal “strategic gaps” or green buffers to maintain separation.
Employment land and economic strategy	Mixed views: some support directing employment growth to Neston, Chester, or along major corridors; others caution against excessive warehousing or industrial expansion on greenfield land. Emphasis on reuse of existing employment areas and evidence‑based need.
Environmental safeguards (biodiversity, heritage, climate)	Many highlight the need for ecological surveys, measurable biodiversity net gain, heritage assessments, landscape protection and avoidance of ancient woodland such as Hob Hey Wood. Climate resilience and flood management are also noted as essential.
Focus on sustainable transport and corridors	Some argue that development should be located along strong transport corridors (rail or motorway), while others warn of existing congestion and the need for major upgrades before new growth.
Miscellaneous / no comment	Includes “see previous answer,” “no comment,” or minimal responses with no substantive content.

Option B

Question SS 16

Do you feel that Option B is an appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan?

218 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for Option B (full or partial support)	Respondents feel Option B offers a balanced distribution of development, aligns with sustainable locations, follows the existing settlement hierarchy, and delivers proportionate growth across key towns. Many support it with qualifications (e.g. ensuring infrastructure or limiting Green Belt release).
Opposition to Option B – Green Belt impact (largest category)	The overwhelming majority of objections focus on Green Belt loss. People argue Option B would cause unacceptable encroachment, erode settlement identity, set a precedent for future release, damage landscapes, and contradict national policy. Many state that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist.
Infrastructure concerns (transport, healthcare, schools)	Respondents argue that roads, GP surgeries, dentists, public transport and schools are already overstretched. Option B is seen as worsening congestion (especially Chester A41/ A51), Northwich access, Frodsham/ Helsby traffic, and rural service pressure.
Preference for Option A (maintain/ strengthen Green Belt)	These respondents prefer minimal or zero Green Belt release, stronger brownfield focus, tighter spatial strategy, and greater protection for rural areas. Option B is seen as too damaging.
Preference for Option C or hybrid B/C	Respondents favour Option C for focusing growth more strategically around Chester, Ellesmere Port and strong transport nodes. Some support a hybrid model combining the sustainability of C with the flexibility of B.
Settlement-specific concerns	Many argue proposed levels in Option B exceed what local towns/ villages can support. Key issues raised for Frodsham, Helsby, Cuddington, Tarvin, Weaverham, Kelsall, Malpas, Neston and others include character loss, traffic, school capacity, Neighbourhood Plan conflicts, and environmental constraints.
Climate, biodiversity, air quality	Environmental objections highlight biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, impact on ancient woodland (e.g., Hob Hey Wood), air pollution, flooding, carbon impacts, and climate-resilience issues created by car‑dependent development patterns.
Calls for brownfield first / urban regeneration	Many assert Option B will undermine brownfield delivery by making greenfield/ Green Belt easier and more attractive for developers, reducing viability of brownfield remediation, and state a preference for regeneration in Chester, Winsford, Northwich, Ellesmere Port.
Need for more evidence (Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulations Assessment, transport studies, Green Belt review)	Respondents request more evidence on environmental impact, infrastructure capacity, Green Belt assessment, sustainability appraisal and spatial capacity before any decision can be justified.
Neutral / in principle support but needing clarification	These respondents neither reject nor endorse Option B fully; they request more detail, express conditional support, or point out uncertainties on numbers or impacts.

Question SS 17

If you do not feel that Option B is an appropriate spatial strategy option, are there any changes that you could suggest?

93 comments

Theme	Summary
Brownfield‑first / prioritise urban regeneration	Strong expectation that the Council exhausts brownfield land, derelict sites, vacant buildings, and underused urban spaces before considering any Green Belt release. Emphasis on regeneration, density, and sustainable redevelopment of existing places.
Protection of Green Belt / opposition to Green Belt release	Broad concern about erosion of Green Belt, loss of openness and character, merging of settlements, and ecological harm. Some call for zero release; others accept minimal, justified, or “grey belt” release.
Support for Option A	Option A seen as the most sustainable, protective of Green Belt, and reflective of local character. Many reject Option B outright and urge adoption of Option A without dilution.
Opposition to Option B (general)	Option B viewed as unsound, overly reliant on Green Belt release, harmful to villages, infrastructure, heritage, and landscape. Some say no amendments could make it acceptable.
Support for hybrid approaches (Option B + C, or D)	Developers and organisations propose blended strategies allowing more flexibility – typically increased dispersal, alternative hierarchy, or strategic green belt releases integrated with infrastructure.
New settlements / new towns / strategic new communities	Proposals to create wholly new settlements or sustainable extensions—self‑sufficient, masterplanned, well‑connected towns/ villages designed to relieve pressure elsewhere.
Infrastructure constraints / infrastructure‑first requirements	Strong warnings about impacts on roads, schools, GP capacity, transport, and utilities. Calls for binding, front‑loaded infrastructure delivery before growth occurs.
Unsustainable rural growth / pressure on villages	Concerns that villages lack capacity, services, sustainable transport, or character resilience to accommodate proposed growth, especially the 2,500 rural dispersal figure.
Settlement‑specific concerns (Frodsham, Helsby, Neston, Chester etc.)	Localised objections highlighting highway issues (Frodsham/  Helsby), rural gaps (Neston/ Parkgate), congestion (Chester), and settlement-specific dis-benefits.
Grey belt / small‑scale targeted releases	Some support limited, evidence-led release of “grey belt” parcels that no longer meet Green Belt purposes, avoiding major urban extensions.
Employment and economic alignment	Comments emphasising economic needs assessments, capacity of employment land, regeneration of industrial estates, and aligning jobs with housing distribution.
Need for updated evidence / studies	Requests for an updated Green Belt Study, brownfield register, transport modelling, infrastructure assessments, and clarity before selecting a spatial strategy.
No Suggestions / No Comments	Respondents who either had no comment or did not wish to propose changes.

Option C

Question SS 18

Do you feel that Option C is an appropriate spatial strategy for the new Local Plan? 

235 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / opposition to Green Belt release	Strong, repeated opposition to Option C due to perceived over‑reliance on Green Belt release, urban sprawl, settlement coalescence, countryside loss, landscape impact, and environmental harm. This is the most dominant theme across the responses.
Infrastructure capacity issues (roads, schools, healthcare, utilities)	Many feel that existing infrastructure is already overstretched and cannot absorb major growth. Particular pressure points include Frodsham, Helsby, Cuddington/Sandiway, Neston, and rural villages. Concerns relate to congestion, lack of GP/dental capacity, school places, and emergency service access.
Public transport limitations / lack of rail and bus connectivity	Respondents argue that rail and bus provision is too infrequent, unreliable, or poorly connected to justify major development. Stations such as Acton Bridge, Delamere, Cuddington, Delamere, Mouldsworth, and Neston are repeatedly cited as unsuitable.
Settlement character and rural identity	Strong concerns that Option C damages the distinctive character of rural villages, risks overdevelopment, introduces ribbon development along corridors, and threatens heritage landscapes and village identity.
Support for Option C (full or partial)	A minority endorses Option C, citing sustainable travel potential, balanced growth, support for regeneration, and opportunities to focus housing near transport infrastructure – though often recommending modifications.
Preference for other strategies (A, B, or hybrid B and C)	Many argue that Options A and/or B are more sustainable, particularly due to the focus on urban areas and brownfield land. Hybrid models (B + C) are cited as more realistic.
Site‑specific objections (Frodsham, Helsby, Neston, Acton Bridge etc.)	Particular opposition focuses on very large indicative housing numbers in certain locations, especially Frodsham (1500–3000 homes) and Helsby (500–1500). Respondents stress lack of capacity, congested roads, and environmental constraints.
Climate and sustainability evidence (for and against)	Supporters cite reduced car use and net‑zero alignment; critics argue real‑world transport conditions would increase car dependency and emissions.
Heritage, ecology, environmental constraints	Major concerns raised about ancient woodland (e.g. Hob Hey Wood), biodiversity, wildlife corridors, allotments, flood risk, landscape sensitivity, and loss of high‑quality agricultural land.
Criticism of evidence base / conflict with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)	Respondents challenge the technical justification behind Option C, arguing it conflicts with NPPF 2024’s Green Belt principles, Sustainability Appraisal/ Habitats Regulations Assessment findings, and lacks credible transport evidence.

Question SS 19

If you do not feel that Option C is an appropriate spatial strategy option, are there any changes that you could suggest?

106 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / opposition to Green Belt release	Concern about the scale of Green Belt release, and respondents strongly oppose the significant Green Belt release proposed under Option C. They argue it would erode settlement gaps (e.g. Chester–Ellesmere Port), damage rural character, remove essential agricultural land, and is not justified by transport‑corridor-based planning. Many favour Option A or minimal release, emphasising brownfield-first development and protection of biodiversity and landscape.
Transport capacity, reliability, and realism	Many argue that Option C overestimates the capability of current rail and bus networks. Services are described as infrequent, unreliable, overcrowded, or non-existent on evenings/Sundays. Car dependency is seen as unavoidable due to gaps in service frequency, station parking shortfalls, poor interchange, and limited capacity on lines like the Frodsham–Chester corridor. Option C is seen as founded on unrealistic modal-shift assumptions.
Unsuitability of small/ rural settlements for large growth	Respondents highlight that many small villages (e.g. Acton Bridge, Willaston, Hooton, Delamere, Capenhurst, Elton, and Cuddington/Sandiway) lack basic services such as schools, shops, GP surgeries, safe walking routes, or adequate road infrastructure. Proposed housing numbers are viewed as disproportionate to their scale and would overwhelm their character, road networks, and service capacity.
Suggested alternatives / hybrid approaches	Many agree that Option C has useful principles, but should be merged with elements of Option B or A, and more proportionate/ targeted growth. Suggestions include focusing more growth in major towns, reducing reliance on rail stations in very small settlements, introducing caps on growth per village, or redefining “sustainable corridors" with stronger tests. Several respondents support a brownfield‑first hybrid with limited strategic Green Belt release only where justified.
Brownfield-first and focus on larger settlements	Strong calls for prioritising brownfield regeneration in Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich, Winsford, and on former industrial sites such as Winnington Works. Respondents argue that dispersal to rural rail locations is less sustainable than intensifying development in/around major urban areas with stronger services, jobs and infrastructure.
Infrastructure capacity (roads, schools, GPs, utilities)	Respondents emphasise that many settlements – particularly Frodsham, Neston, Winsford, Northwich – are already struggling with traffic congestion (A56, Winnington Bridge, rural lanes), oversubscribed medical practices, school capacity issues, water pressure/ sewerage limits, and weak digital connectivity. They argue that development should be “infrastructure-first” with guaranteed investment before allocations are made.
Settlement identity / avoiding coalescence	Many fear that corridor-based development risks ribbon development, loss of countryside gaps, and merging villages. Strong emphasis placed on protecting distinct settlement identities (e.g. maintaining separation between Northwich–Weaverham–Acton Bridge; Ellesmere Port–Chester).
Supportive comments (full or conditional)	A minority support Option C in principle, especially its focus on sustainable transport corridors and distributing growth more evenly. However, support is typically conditional upon major modifications – such as improved multimodal transport, rebalancing allocations, or clearer sustainability criteria.
Location‑specific concerns (Acton Bridge, Frodsham, Neston, Chester, Northwich, Willaston/ Hooton)	Many comments focus on specific settlements. Objections include severe congestion in Frodsham/ Neston, limited rail/bus usability in Acton Bridge, constraints in Chester, flooding/bridge capacity in Northwich, and rural road constraints in Willaston/ Hooton. These localised issues reinforce concerns about the proportionality of Option C’s distribution.
New infrastructure / strategic transport proposals	A small number propose new strategic transport investments (e.g. new road corridors, improved river crossings, express bus routes) to relieve bottlenecks and potentially support future development. Some suggest entirely new settlements rather than dispersed growth along weak corridors.

Potential growth areas

Question SS 20

Do you think that the potential ‘showstopper’ constraints identified above, are correct or are there any others that we should consider?

102 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection and opposition to release	Many respondents argue the Green Belt is a fundamental environmental and spatial constraint that should be treated as a true “showstopper.” They express concern that the draft plan fails to protect Green Belt sufficiently, and that any release risks settlement identity, countryside character, and sustainable planning principles.
Landscape character, views and settlement identity	Comments emphasise that valued landscapes, village approaches, strategic gaps, protected views, and characterful settings must be maintained. Many fear development will erode identity, create coalescence, or harm well-known landscape assets.
Ancient woodland, biodiversity, ecology and trees	Respondents strongly defend ancient woodland, biodiversity corridors, Tree Preservation Order (TPO) trees, and habitats as irreplaceable ecological assets. Recommendations include elevating these as explicit showstoppers due to their carbon, habitat and heritage value.
Flood risk, drainage and water management	Multiple comments highlight flood risk, surface water, steep topography and drainage infrastructure as either absolute constraints or requiring far more detailed modelling than presented. Some argue flood risk should not be a blanket showstopper but must be realistically assessed.
Infrastructure capacity (schools, health, roads, utilities)	Frequent concern that infrastructure – especially schools, GPs, sewerage, and utilities – is already overstretched. Respondents argue development should not proceed unless evidence-based, deliverable capacity improvements are guaranteed in advance.
Transport, highways and accessibility	Respondents cite congestion, poor road visibility, unsafe junctions, reliance on car travel, and unrealistic transport assumptions as barriers. Several specific comments relate to steep access, flood-prone roads, or rural stations with poor connectivity.
Rights of way, footpaths and recreation assets	Strong protection is sought for Public Rights of Way (PROW) networks, named walking routes, and recreation connectivity. Respondents argue that breaking valued countryside walking routes is unacceptable.
Air quality, pollution and public health	Many link development pressures to worsening air quality, especially in air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), and highlight public health risks from pollution, noise, and loss of green space.
Agricultural Land & Food Security (BMV land)	Respondents emphasise Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land as crucial national infrastructure for food security and climate resilience, arguing it should be treated as a showstopper.
Settlement-specific concerns (Frodsham, Hooton, Mouldsworth etc.)	Comments raise specific local constraints (steep slopes, wildlife corridors, flooding, congestion) and criticisms that the Local Plan treats certain settlements inconsistently or ignores local evidence.
Criticism or support of the ‘showstopper’ list itself	A major theme: some believe the list is correct and comprehensive; others say it is incomplete, inconsistent, or too rigid. Developers and agents commonly argue the constraints should not preclude sites, and some policies (e.g. Key Settlement Gaps, Areas of Special County Value, Local Green Space) should be revisited.
Heritage and historic environment	Respondents call for stronger protection of conservation areas, settlement gateways, traditional character, and landscape approach routes, noting that insensitive development can damage heritage context.
Developer / land promoter challenges to constraints	Developers often argue the identified constraints should be weighed rather than treated as absolute. Many urge the Council to reassess local designations, allow mitigation, and ensure housing delivery targets drive decisions.
Climate change, carbon and resilience	Comments stress climate adaptation, avoidance of heat or drought‑risk sites, carbon sink protection (especially woodland), and ensuring development aligns with net‑zero commitments.
Minerals and utilities constraints	Some highlight mineral safeguarding areas and buried utilities (pipelines, sewers, mains) as critical constraints that must be accounted for early, and could affect site deliverability.
General agreement / neutral support	Numerous comments simply express agreement that the constraints listed are correct, adequate or sensible without providing additional detail.
Other Specific Issues	Several additional smaller themes appear, including noise pollution, mineral safeguarding/ assessments, development delivery track record, and coalescence risk.

Question SS 21

What information should we take into account when assessing sites for allocation in the new Local Plan?

145 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt, countryside protection and landscape character	Respondents strongly emphasise the need to protect the Green Belt, preserve rural character, prevent settlement coalescence, and safeguard distinctive landscapes. Many express concern that large-scale development would erode countryside identity, harm valued views, and undermine long‑standing strategic purposes of Green Belt policy.
Infrastructure capacity (roads, schools, GPs, utilities)	The dominant theme. Responses argue that many areas already face significant strain on highways, congestion, parking, GP and dental services, school places, water and sewerage networks. Without substantial, guaranteed, and timely infrastructure investment, new allocations are seen as unviable and harmful.
Local community views and neighbourhood plans	Many emphasise that neighbourhood plans, parish strategies, resident priorities, and local knowledge should meaningfully influence allocations. Responses highlight distrust where previous plans were overlooked, urging improved engagement and respect for democratically endorsed local planning documents.
Environmental impact and biodiversity	Respondents stress strong concerns about loss of habitats, ancient woodland (particularly Hob Hey Wood), wildlife corridors, ecological connectivity, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, protected species, and natural capital. They argue that ecological assets are irreplaceable and should rule out nearby development.
Flood risk, drainage, water and sewerage	Flood risk – especially surface-water and sewer flooding – is repeatedly cited. Respondents want evidence‑based hydrological assessments, not reliance on high‑level maps. Capacity concerns extend to wastewater treatment, stormwater systems, and the impact of climate‑driven flooding.
Transport sustainability and public transport limitations	Many argue that rural public transport is insufficient and unreliable, making car dependency unavoidable. Respondents challenge assumed rail/bus accessibility and note real‑world issues such as infrequent services, poor station access, and vulnerability to motorway disruption.
Housing need, type, deliverability and market factors	Comments highlight the need for realistic delivery trajectories, genuine local housing need (especially affordable homes), suitable housing types, land availability, developer willingness, viability, market absorption, and suitability within settlement hierarchies. Responses stress that undeliverable sites undermine the plan.
Evidence base, assessment methodology and consistency	Respondents call for a transparent, consistent, and robust evidence base: updated Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), Green Belt study, landscape assessments, flood modelling, viability analysis, transport modelling, and parish‑level context. They argue that inconsistent approaches undermine confidence.
Health, wellbeing, air quality and amenity	Many note that development should not worsen poor air quality, increase road danger for pedestrians, reduce access to nature, or harm wider wellbeing. Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) concerns (e.g. A56) recur frequently as a potential showstopper.
Heritage, conservation and historic environment	A number of comments highlight impacts on heritage features – conservation areas, ancient woodland, archaeological landscapes, locally valued historic features – and argue these should carry significant weight in site selection.
Developer engagement, utility providers / agencies (gas, pipelines, water, canals etc.)	Statutory bodies request early engagement, highlighting safety buffers, asset protection zones, structural risks (e.g. around canals), groundwater safeguarding, and the need for allocation policies to reference specific infrastructure constraints.

Question SS 22

Do you have any other comments or suggestions you wish to make about our approach to identifying potential growth areas or allocations in the new Local Plan

113 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt, grey belt & countryside protection	Strong and repeated opposition to any Green Belt release or reclassification to “grey belt”. Many assert that no land around Chester meets the definition of grey belt, citing its continued fulfilment of all Green Belt purposes. Concerns include urban sprawl, coalescence, loss of character, environmental harm, and undermining public trust.
Brownfield-first development and urban regeneration	Calls for a stronger, enforceable brownfield-first approach, with urban capacity maximised before any rural or Green Belt consideration. Suggests use of regeneration strategies, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) brownfield toolkit, conversion of unused retail/ office space, and prioritising derelict land.
Infrastructure capacity (roads, schools, health, utilities, drainage)	Major concern across submissions. Respondents argue infrastructure is already overstretched and cannot accommodate major housing growth. Highlights include school capacity limits, GP and dental shortages, congested roads, unsafe walking routes, inadequate bus services, limited station parking, outdated drainage systems, and need for evidence-based, funded infrastructure plans.
Consultation process, transparency and public trust	Respondents report inaccessible or unclear consultation processes, lack of awareness among residents, poor timing (summer), and insufficient engagement with parish councils. Concerns that the Land Availability Assessment is opaque and may later be misused to justify planning decisions.
Flood risk, climate change and environmental constraints	Raises significant concern about outdated flood-risk data, increased surface water risk, climate change impacts, overload on drainage/ sewer systems, and inadequate environmental screening. Natural England highlights need for Appropriate Assessment across many allocations due to impacts on habitats, species, water quality, peat, and air pollution. Environmental constraints, wetlands, priority habitats, peatland, ancient woodland.
Housing numbers, delivery, Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) builders and allocation strategy	Comments focus on meeting targets realistically, ensuring proper monitoring, the need for small-site allocations for SME developers, and including a buffer to avoid under-delivery. Some developers promote specific sites (e.g., Winsford WIN04, Mickle Trafford). Points also raised about demographic shifts and housing type needs (downsizing, ageing population).
Settlement-specific issues (village impact, local constraints, suitability)	Numerous comments focused on the impact of potential growth on specific settlements. Concerns include traffic danger, pavement widths, inadequate facilities, local school capacity, unsuitable roads, village character, coalescence, planning history, and nuclear safety zones. Willaston/ Hooton, Davenham, Helsby, Tattenhall, Wincham, Frodsham, Helsby transport, Winsford, Chester, Malpas, Farndon, Tarporley, Tarvin, Tattenhall, Saughall, Capenhurst, Upton, and Middlewich.
Transport corridors, rural stations, accessibility and sustainable mobility	Mixed views on the value of transport-corridor-based development. Some support focusing near stations; others argue rural stations lack parking, frequency, capacity, and create car dependency. Assertions that “sustainable transport corridors” are a flawed concept in rural Cheshire.
Strategic employment, industrial decarbonisation and economic growth areas	Strong support from industry stakeholders for growth around major employment hubs (Ellesmere Port, Protos, Middlewich). Emphasis on decarbonisation, clustering industrial uses, labour accessibility, and synergy with strategic infrastructure such as the M6 and Middlewich Eastern Bypass.
Neighbourhood plans and community-led planning	Calls for Neighbourhood Plans to be respected as legally significant and not overridden. Emphasises community consent, local knowledge, and the need for neighbourhood-led site identification.
Social infrastructure and demographic change	Comments address the need for planning for changing demographics (ageing population, downsizing), support for local shops and services, preventing loss of employment/ retail uses in villages, and ensuring facilities grow with population.
Criminal justice infrastructure (prison site search)	Request for inclusion of a strategic policy for identifying and safeguarding land for a new Cat B/C prison. States Cheshire West and Chester is a suitable region due to connectivity, labour supply, and proximity to courts. Notes economic benefits, job creation, and high sustainability standards of new prisons.
Neutral / No-comment Submissions	Responses where the submitter provided no further comments or explicitly wrote “No”.

Potential growth areas (Chester)

Question SS 23

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Chester do you consider to be the most suitable?

74 comments

Theme	Summary
Preferences for potential growth areas (CH01–CH04)	Respondents express varied preferences: some favour CH01 as logical for mixed-use redevelopment; CH02 supported for sustainable transport links; CH03 supported due to existing development; CH04 seen as acceptable with caveats; many state none are suitable.
Support for Option A / no development	Strong support for retaining Green Belt, citing infrastructure capacity, traffic, school and healthcare constraints, and protection of Chester’s historic character.
Green Belt protection and landscape concerns	Comments emphasise preserving Green Belt boundaries, avoiding urban sprawl, and protection of woodland, wildlife corridors, and countryside setting.
Infrastructure capacity issues (roads, schools, healthcare)	Concerns raised regarding congestion, unsafe roads, lack of crossings, school capacity (e.g., Christleton High), GP shortages, and unfulfilled infrastructure promises.
Flood risk and environmental constraints	Several sites (CH01, CH03) face flooding constraints (Flood zones 2 & 3), ecological mitigation areas, and wildlife impacts.
Site-specific concerns and suitability	Detailed concerns raised on individual sites: CH01 reliant on barracks closure; CH02 risks merging settlements; CH03 flood and biodiversity issues; CH04 weak northern boundary and heritage constraints.
Support for mixed use & redevelopment (esp. CH01)	Some support for redevelopment of Dale Barracks and other previously developed land for sustainable mixed-use schemes.
Strategic growth and economic development arguments	Some developers argue for balanced growth, economic competitiveness and addressing city‑wide housing needs through Green Belt release.
Cross-border and highways impacts (Flintshire)	Concerns raised regarding traffic on A548 and flood risk impacts downstream from CH03 & CH04.

Question SS 24

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Chester?

206 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection and opposition to development	Strong and widespread objection to any release of Green Belt land across CH01–CH04, citing urban sprawl, loss of settlement separation, harm to countryside character, and conflict with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) purposes.
Wildlife, biodiversity & environmental impacts	Concerns over loss of habitats, protected species (badgers, bats, Great Crested Newts), woodland removal, landscape character change, and environmental corridors being severed.
Traffic, congestion & road safety	Significant concerns about A41/A51/A56/A55 congestion, Lache Lane pinch‑points, unsafe junctions, rat‑running, queueing to hospital/zoo, and emergency access constraints.
Flood risk, drainage and water management	Concerns regarding existing flooding problems (e.g. Lache Lane, Balderton Brook), insufficient drainage infrastructure, outdated flood modelling, and loss of natural floodplains increasing downstream risk.
Infrastructure capacity (schools, GPs, dentists, utilities)	Issues raised about oversubscribed schools, severe GP shortages, lack of dentists, utilities nearing capacity, and insufficient public transport to support additional homes.
Opposition to scale of development and housing numbers	Many respondents state that the proposed borough‑wide housing numbers are excessive, unjustified, and harmful to community character and infrastructure resilience.
Site‑specific concerns (CH01–CH04)	Concerns tied to each area: CH01 wildlife/biodiversity; CH02 merging villages and A41 constraints; CH03 flooding and biodiversity; CH04 weak boundaries and high traffic impacts.
Criticism of consultation process	Two respondents argue the consultation was inaccessible, overly complex, or designed to reduce community participation.
Support for brownfield‑first strategy	Many assert brownfield redevelopment, including town centre regeneration, must be prioritised before considering Green Belt release.

Question SS 25

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Chester when developing the new Local Plan?

50 comments

Theme	Summary
Traffic, congestion and road infrastructure	Widespread concerns about congestion, inadequate road capacity, and safety issues across Chester.
Healthcare capacity	Healthcare services are overstretched with long waits and limited provision.
Schools and education capacity	Schools are at or near capacity, with demands for early provision for new places.
Green Belt, countryside & landscape	Strong objections to loss of Green Belt and countryside land.
Flood risk and drainage	Significant worries about existing and future flood risk and drainage capacity.
Biodiversity and environmental quality	Concerns about habitat loss, declining air quality, and reduced green space.
Public transport and active travel	Bus, rail, cycling, and walking networks need major improvement.
Infrastructure delivery and evidence base	Calls for evidence-led planning and infrastructure-first delivery.
Opposition to housing growth	Some respondents oppose further housing altogether due to cumulative impacts.
Support for CH01	Many believe CH01 is the least constrained and most appropriate area for growth.
Site-specific comments	Technical points related to safeguarding, Neighbourhood Plan policies, and site-specific deliverability.

Potential growth areas (Ellesmere Port)

Question SS 26

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Ellesmere Port do you consider to be the most suitable?

37 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for potential growth areas (EP01–EP04)	Many respondents express preferences: strongest recurring support for EP01 and EP04; some support for EP02 and EP03; several state all options are suitable.
Green Belt protection / objection to development	Some respondents highlight the need to retain Green Belt, limit urban sprawl and avoid strategic gap reduction.
Infrastructure and access concerns	Concerns raised about narrow rural lanes, major junction constraints, motorway interchange limitations, and general access feasibility.
Town centre regeneration and economic development	One comment emphasises the need for investment in Ellesmere Port town centre, including redevelopment, retail improvements, and enhanced leisure offer.
Heritage and environmental assessment needs	One respondent requests robust heritage and environmental assessments prior to selecting preferred options.
Preference for Option A (strategic approach)	Three respondents explicitly indicate preference for Option A when presented.
Active travel an sustainable location considerations	One respondent supports prioritising sustainable transport and proximity to sub‑centres.
Site deliverability & land ownership issues	One comment highlights that EP01 contains multiple landowners and suggest a single‑ownership alternative (Land South of Ellesmere Port).

Question SS 27

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Ellesmere Port?

29 comments

Theme	Summary
Town centre regeneration and vision for Ellesmere Port	Respondents emphasise the need for comprehensive regeneration of Ellesmere Port town centre, including demolition of derelict buildings, improved retail and leisure offer, and free parking to reverse decline.
Preference for brownfield redevelopment before Green Belt release	Some responses stress prioritising redevelopment of existing urban areas, surface car parks, and brownfield land before considering development on Green Belt sites.
Objection to Green Belt release and protection of strategic gaps	Some representations oppose any development in Ellesmere Port’s surrounding Green Belt, citing settlement separation and protecting the Chester–Ellesmere Port gap.
Site-specific views on EP01, EP02, EP03, EP04	Some respondents favour EP01 as most suitable; EP02 noted as access‑constrained; EP03 opposed due to reducing the gap with Eastham; EP04 viewed by developers as least appropriate.
Infrastructure requirements	Two comments note the need for major highway improvements, utilities upgrades, and careful phasing to support any growth around Ellesmere Port.
Historic and environmental assessment needs	One respondent requests robust heritage and environmental assessments before selecting growth areas.
Agricultural land quality considerations	One comment highlight the need to assess agricultural productivity and viability of remaining parcels.
Support for increased development in Ellesmere Port	A minority express general support for more development given the town’s employment and transport links.
Promotion of strategic employment and energy sites	Developers promote large‑scale employment, energy, and clean‑growth clusters around Protos and former industrial land, including proposed extensions and Green Belt release.

Question SS 28

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Ellesmere Port when developing the new Local Plan?

21 comments

Theme	Summary
Utility & infrastructure constraints (e.g. NGET (National Grid), pipelines)	Two respondents highlight conflicts with National Grid overhead lines, COMAH zones at Stanlow, and major pipeline corridors affecting suitability of EP01–EP02.
Flood risk concerns	One respondent submits that EP04 is located within flood zone 3b and dependent on Manchester Ship Canal culvert operation, posing significant flood risk.
Minerals safeguarding needs	One request for Minerals Resource Assessments where Minerals Safeguarding Areas exist; noted that Issues & Options mapping omitted this data.
Transport and highway capacity issues	Concerns raised regarding motorway network congestion, especially M56/M53 impacts, plus need for junction upgrades.
Pressure on local services (GPs, schools, policing)	One comment notes insufficient social infrastructure capacity to support major strategic growth.
Support for EP01 as the preferred growth area	Recurring theme: EP01 western parcels seen as best fit, good access to A5117/A41, fewer constraints.
Constraints identified – potential growth area EP02	EP02 requires major access remodelling, limited suitability without significant intervention.
Concerns – potential growth areas EP03	EP03 risks reducing strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham.
Best & Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land	One respondent comments that Areas of Grade 2 or 3 agricultural land should undergo detailed surveys before allocation.
Innovation, net zero and energy infrastructure	One respondent comments that the Ellesmere Port area hosts nationally critical net-zero infrastructure including HyNet, pipelines, hydrogen production, and energy connections.
General transport and growth capacity concerns	One respondent comments that strategic developments must consider M53/M56 corridor capacity and wider network impacts.
Comprehensive development and phasing requirements	One respondent comments that EP01 should only be released if benefits delivered at scale with early infrastructure via S106.

Potential growth areas (Northwich)

Question SS 29

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Northwich do you consider to be the most suitable?

306 comments

Theme	Summary
NOR10 – Weaverham as a preferred sustainable growth area	Respondents overwhelmingly view NOR10 as the most sustainable and least damaging growth area, due to existing infrastructure such as shops, GP services, schools, and strong connections to the A49. Many feel Weaverham can integrate growth without altering village character excessively and with smaller visual/landscape impact than alternatives.
NOR08 – Land Adjacent to A556 opposite Hartford	Frequently supported due to excellent transport links, especially proximity to A556 and Hartford Station. Viewed as causing minimal traffic load on Hartford and Davenham compared to other options, despite being Green Belt. Favoured as a “least harmful” Green Belt candidate.
Regeneration of Northwich town centre and Winnington Village	Widespread calls to prioritise brownfield redevelopment inside the town centre before releasing any Green Belt. Many emphasise empty commercial units, vacant land near Winnington (TATA sites), and the ability to deliver sustainable, high-density mixed-use housing. Revitalisation would bring economic benefits and reduce car reliance. Strong alignment with national brownfield-first policy. Winnington Village expansion commonly seen as logical due to existing infrastructure, less harmful than expanding rural villages, and supported by job access and existing road links.
Support for NOR01 (Barnton) as a secondary option	NOR01 is seen as a more logical expansion area due to its access to A559/M56 and availability of exiting village services and facilities. Some regard it as having less landscape harm than Davenham/Weaverham proposals. However, Green Belt objections remain common.
Advocacy for NOR05 (Gadbrook Park)	Favoured for conversion from employment to residential land due to underused employment land and large amounts of vacant office stock (e.g., ex‑Barclays) and excellent access to A556/M6. Strong support for adding a new Rudheath railway station linked to this growth.
Strong opposition to Davenham Growth (NOR06 + NOR07)	One of the strongest and most consistent themes. Respondents argue that development would overwhelm village character, overload congested roads (A556, Hartford Rd, London Rd), stretch school/GP capacity and inadequate bus services, destroy valued landscapes and areas rich in wildlife and ancient trees, and worsen flood risk. Widely described as “disproportionate” and “village doubling.”
Green Belt protection, ecology and biodiversity concerns	Many strongly oppose any Green Belt release, citing permanent Green Belt and environmental loss, wildlife corridor damage, landscape character harm, climate commitments, mental wellbeing benefits of open space, and increased flooding risk.
Infrastructure constraints (cross‑cutting theme)	Concerns about failing or overloaded infrastructure recur across almost every area. The Winnington/Barnton swing bridge is identified as “a single point of failure” that cannot handle current traffic (several cite 400+ HGV daily movements from related developments), while A49 and A556 congestion, Hartford Road bottlenecks, and insufficient public transport frequently appear. Many argue that no major growth is possible until large-scale infrastructure upgrades occur.
Brownfield‑first advocacy	Many believe Northwich has ample vacant/underused land to support housing need without using Green Belt. Repeated emphasis on: empty retail and office units in Northwich, underused land in Winnington (TATA sites), regeneration opportunities in Lostock Gralam, and town centre buildings with large footprints. Further emphasis on sustainability, climate goals, and efficient land use. Seen as a strategic option before expanding into rural areas.
Preference for smaller, distributed developments	Instead of concentrating 1,000+ homes in a single village (e.g. Davenham), some respondents recommend spreading smaller developments across multiple settlements to reduce impact and avoid infrastructure shock.
Alternative locations (Lostock, Comberbach, Anderton, NOR02/ NOR03/ NOR04/ NOR09)	Suggestions include locations would be better suited due to railway proximity, former industrial land, or lower village sensitivity, and avoiding development on steep or flood‑prone ground (e.g. NOR11). Seen as opportunities to rebalance growth more sustainably.

Question SS 30

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Northwich?

395 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection and opposition to release	Respondents overwhelmingly oppose development on Green Belt land in Barnton, Anderton, Weaverham, Davenham, arguing it causes irreversible harm to countryside character, openness, wildlife, heritage settings, settlement boundaries, and agricultural land. Many insist exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated and call for a firm brownfield‑first policy.
Flooding, drainage and watercourse risk	Many sites, particularly NOR10, NOR11, NOR12, NOR06, and NOR07 are reported as flood‑prone, with recurring incidents along Sandy Lane, River Weaver, River Dane, Hartford Road, and Eaton Lane. Respondents fear that development will worsen run‑off, overwhelm Victorian drainage infrastructure, and endanger nearby properties.
Infrastructure capacity (schools, GPs, dentists, utilities)	Infrastructure in Davenham, Hartford, Barnton and Weaverham is described as “already at breaking point.” Schools are full, GP and dental appointments are hard to obtain, and sewerage/ utility capacity is questioned across all three settlements. Development is not supported without major investment.
Traffic, congestion and transport constraints	Road networks are highlighted as already gridlocked, with key constraints including: Winnington Swing Bridge, Barnton Tunnel, A556, A49, Hartford Road, Eaton Lane and Sandy Lane. Public transport is limited and unreliable. Respondents insist housing levels will trigger severe congestion and safety risks.
Loss of agricultural land / food security problems	Respondents emphasise that NOR06, NOR07, NOR10, and NOR12 consist of productive, in‑use farmland (including Grade 1–3 land). Loss of these areas is framed as a threat to long‑term food security, rural economy, soil health and national resilience.
Disproportionate scale / loss of village identity	Davenham and Weaverham face developments that would double their size. Respondents argue this scale is incompatible with rural village character, conservation areas, heritage assets and community cohesion. They emphasise the need for settlement gaps and maintaining distinct identities.
Environmental / biodiversity impacts	Significant concern about damage to habitats for bats, owls, badgers, hedgehogs, newts, bees, woodland species and rare/increasingly threatened birds. Ancient woodland (e.g., Beech Hill Wood) and wildlife corridors are frequently cited as irreplaceable assets threatened by proposed development.
Heritage and conservation area concerns	Primary focus on Davenham: impact on a designated Conservation Area, Davenham Hall (Grade II*), St Wilfrid’s Church (Grade II*), historic parkland and Article 4 land. Respondents stress statutory duties to preserve heritage settings and view NOR06–07 as fundamentally incompatible.
Brownfield first / town centre regeneration	Many argue Northwich’s brownfield assets (Weaver Square, Barons Quay, riverside land, industrial sites including TATA) should be redeveloped before releasing countryside. This includes calls for mixed‑use regeneration, repurposed empty units, and town‑centre revitalisation to support sustainable living patterns.
Support for NOR01 (Barnton NE) as preferable	While still contested by some, NOR01 receives notable support relative to other areas, with respondents citing: proximity to A559/ transport links, existing services, fewer landscape constraints than elsewhere, and ability to deliver a mixed housing offer without overwhelming village identity.
Preferred alternative locations	Respondents frequently recommend shifting growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and employment: Barnton NE (NOR01), Gadbrook Park (repurpose employment land), Wincham, urban Northwich brownfield sites, Bostock Green, Winnington expansion, or entirely new planned settlements rather than piecemeal village expansion.
Objection to 5,000‑Home target	A subset of respondents argue the borough-wide target is excessive, disproportionate for Northwich, and should be more evenly distributed across Cheshire West rather than concentrated in a small number of already pressured settlements.

Question SS 31

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Northwich when developing the new Local Plan?

275 comments

Theme	Summary
Heritage, character and Conservation Area	Development at NOR06 and NOR07 is widely perceived as fundamentally incompatible with Davenham’s historic identity, Conservation Area status, and long‑established rural character. Respondents emphasise that heritage assets, historic views, and the village’s distinctive landscape setting would be irreversibly harmed.
Infrastructure capacity (roads, traffic, parking, utilities)	Respondents consistently highlight that Davenham’s transport network is already congested and unsafe. Road widths, junction pinch points, rat‑running, limited parking, inadequate bus service, and strained utilities (sewerage, drainage) mean the village cannot absorb additional housing without major infrastructure upgrades.
Public services (schools, healthcare, emergency services)	Public services, particularly GPs, dental care, and school places are described as critically overstretched. Multiple commenters report difficulty accessing appointments and long waiting times. Schools are at capacity, emergency services are limited, and no feasible expansion proposals exist. Growth would worsen access and overwhelm essential services.
Flood risk and drainage	NOR06 and NOR07 include land that acts as natural flood mitigation. Commenters frequently reference historic flooding at Hartford Road, Eaton Lane, and Elderbriar Brook. There is widespread belief that development will worsen surface water runoff and increase flood vulnerability for both existing and future residents.
Ecology and biodiversity impacts	Sites NOR06/NOR07 contain high‑value ecological assets including ancient woodland, species‑rich hedgerows, TPO‑protected trees, and habitats for protected species such as bats, owls, badgers, birds of prey, and amphibians. Respondents argue the developments would breach biodiversity net gain requirements and permanently damage irreplaceable ecosystems.
Prime agricultural land & food security	NOR06 and NOR07 contain some of the highest‑quality farmland in Cheshire, used for active food production. Respondents emphasise that developing this land undermines local and national food security and contradicts local plan commitments to protect best and most versatile (BMV) land.
Site access and highway safety	Multiple responses note that Eaton Lane (NOR07) is a narrow single‑track lane unsuitable for increased traffic or construction vehicles, while NOR06 access via Church Street and London Road is already hazardous. Emergency access, sightline constraints, and congestion combine to create significant safety risks.
Scale and proportionality of development	The proposed housing numbers (over 1,300 homes) are widely viewed as massively disproportionate to the size, services, and rural context of Davenham. Many fear it would effectively transform the village into a town or merge it into neighbouring settlements.
Alternative strategy preferences	Respondents across numerous submissions support smaller, more locally appropriate developments already in the planning system (e.g. in Bostock Green) and advocate a “brownfield first” approach, especially regeneration of Northwich town centre.
Hynet hydrogen pipeline constraint	A significant portion of NOR07 (and NOR08) lies within or adjacent to the draft HyNet hydrogen pipeline safeguarding zone. This introduces safety concerns, reduces developable land, and complicates planning.
Wellbeing and community impact	Green spaces, walking routes, and rural environment contribute significantly to residents’ wellbeing and mental health. Many respondents describe development as a direct threat to quality of life, community cohesion, and the health benefits of countryside access.
Policy and plan conflicts	Respondents argue that the proposals contradict Cheshire West and Chester’s own Local Plan principles (STRAT1, ENV4), climate emergency framework, and multiple National Planning Policy Framework sections relating to heritage, infrastructure, and sustainable development.
General opposition to development	A high majority of submissions call for removal or significant reduction of NOR06 and NOR07, citing compounded impacts across heritage, environment, infrastructure, and service capacity.

Potential growth areas (Winsford)

Question SS 32

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Winsford do you consider to be the most suitable?

57 comments

Theme	Summary
Preferred growth areas (WIN03, WIN04, WIN05, WIN06, WIN07)	Most respondents identify potential growth area WIN03 and WIN04 as the most suitable and sustainable, with some support for WIN05–WIN07 depending on context.
Support for Option A / minimal growth	Several respondents explicitly favour Option A or minimal development, emphasising protection of countryside and limiting expansion.
Infrastructure concerns (roads, schools, services)	Many comments highlight capacity issues: traffic congestion, inadequate road access, school capacity concerns, bus service limitations.
Environmental, heritage & landscape considerations	Some respondents raise environmental constraints including conservation area impacts, heritage settings, ecology, and landscape sensitivity.
Objections to specific sites (esp. WIN04, WIN07)	Some oppose development on grounds of loss of farmland, community facilities, dangerous roads, habitat loss, or subsidence risk.
Employment vs. Housing location preferences	Some respondents express views on best locations for employment land (WIN02A/B, WIN01, WIN06) versus suitable housing extensions.
Support for all mapped options	Two respondents support all identified areas as suitable for development.
General support for growth in Winsford	Several respondents see Winsford as capable of additional growth due to existing infrastructure and its non‑Green Belt location.

Question SS 33

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Winsford?

55 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure and transport concerns	Strong concerns about inadequate road capacity, dangerous rural lanes, congestion, lack of public transport, limited bus frequency, and car dependency across Winsford growth areas.
Environmental, landscape and biodiversity impacts	Objections highlight loss of greenfield land, wildlife habitats, ancient trees, dairy farmland, landscape character, and inconsistency with climate and biodiversity commitments.
Opposition to specific sites (WIN05, WIN04, WIN07)	WIN05 heavily opposed due to poor access, distance from services, rural lane constraints. WIN04 concerns include conservation area, unstable land and topography. WIN07 concerns relate to hazardous road sections near Marton and Whitegate.
Capacity of local services (schools, healthcare)	Concerns raised about overstretched schools, GP surgeries, dentists, and the need for new community facilities to support growth.
Flood risk and land stability	Comments highlight areas within Flood Zones 2/3, unstable ground conditions reported in WIN04, and wider drainage concerns.
Neighbourhood Plan and policy alignment	Respondents reference Winsford Neighbourhood Plan and Development Framework, arguing proposed sites do not align with established local priorities for regeneration and sustainable growth.
General opposition to large-scale growth / protecting settlement separation	Concerns include loss of separation between Winsford and surrounding villages such as Moulton, Darnhall, Whitegate and Marton.
Supportive comments / suitable areas identified	A minority state that all Winsford growth areas are suitable, or identify WIN03, WIN04, and WIN07 as more appropriate locations.

Question SS 34

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Winsford when developing the new Local Plan?

29 comments

Theme	Summary
Transport and road infrastructure constraints	Frequent concerns about congestion, limited road capacity (A54, A533), need for bypasses, dangerous junctions, rural lanes, and inadequate bus/rail services.
Education and healthcare capacity	Primary and secondary schools reported as full or near capacity; GP and dental services overstretched or inaccessible.
Utilities, drainage and digital infrastructure	Issues raised about drainage, sewer capacity, surface water flooding, water infrastructure, and poor mobile/broadband coverage.
Environmental and heritage constraints	Concerns about conservation areas (e.g., St Chad’s), special landscape value, biodiversity, agricultural land quality, and need for minerals safeguarding.
Public transport limitations	Poor bus service frequency and unreliable rail services cited as major barriers to sustainable development.
Community facilities and social infrastructure needs	Reports of limited community, leisure, youth, and library facilities requiring investment alongside any growth.
Support for development with mitigation	Two respondents suggest constraints can be overcome through design-led approaches or planning obligations (notably for WIN04).
General opposition / infrastructure first principle	Many state that no development should occur until significant infrastructure improvements are delivered first.

Potential growth areas (Cuddington and Sandiway)

Question SS 35

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Cuddington and Sandiway do you consider to be the most suitable?

46 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for specific growth areas options (CUD01–CUD05)	Respondents expressed varying preferences, with strongest support for potential growth areas CUD02 and CUD03 due to being outside the Green Belt; some support for CUD04; minimal support for CUD01/CUD05.
Support for retaining Green Belt / Option A	A significant number of respondents prioritised retaining the Green Belt, citing rural character, landscape protection and settlement separation.
Infrastructure concerns	Concerns focused on traffic, GP and school capacity, car dependency, lack of public transport, and cumulative impacts of recent growth.
Environmental / landscape / heritage issues	Comments raised issues with landscape character, biodiversity, heritage assets, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) considerations, and avoiding coalescence with neighbouring settlements.
Objection to scale of development	Many respondents considered the proposed level of growth excessive, disproportionate, or inconsistent with previous evidence.
Support for specific limited growth / hybrid approaches	Some supported limited growth or hybrid combinations (e.g., parts of CUD04), emphasising sustainability and logical extensions.
Active travel / sustainable transport suggestions	Two respondents encouraged prioritising cycling, walking, and connectivity to reduce car dependency.
General objection to any development	Some respondents opposed all options or stated no development is suitable.

Question SS 36

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Cuddington and Sandiway?

150 comments

Theme	Summary
Opposition to development in Cuddington and Sandiway	Majority of respondents objection to any further large-scale housing development across all potential growth areas around Cuddington and Sandiway.
Green Belt protection	Strong resistance to removing land from the Green Belt, seen as vital for settlement separation, rural identity and landscape protection.
Infrastructure concerns	Key issues include insufficient GP capacity, loss of local GP surgery, limited school places, inadequate bus/rail services, drainage, flooding and road capacity.
Traffic, road safety and access issues	Concerns about single-track lanes, narrow roads, speeding, hazardous junctions, increased congestion and lack of pavements.
Loss of farmland, landscape and biodiversity	Objections emphasise loss of high-quality agricultural land, wildlife habitats, woodland and valued views.
Preference for Option A (Green Belt retained)	Many respondents explicitly supported Option A as the only acceptable option.
Concerns about scale of development	Frequent view that proposed housing numbers (up to ~4000 dwellings) far exceed what the area can support.
Sustainable transport & station limitations	Arguments that the train station is too limited to justify growth under Option C.

Question SS 37

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Cuddington and Sandiway when developing the new Local Plan?

50 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure capacity concerns	Widespread concerns about inadequate infrastructure including roads, utilities, congestion, drainage, sewage, broadband, and overall service capacity.
Healthcare and GP access issues	Closure of Sandiway surgery and lack of local GP/dental services repeatedly cited as critical constraints.
School capacity concerns	Primary and secondary school capacity already under pressure; fears that new development will exceed provision.
Traffic, road safety & transport issues	Concerns around congestion on A49/A556, poor public transport frequency, unsafe junctions, narrow lanes, speeding, and lack of footpaths/cycleways.
Environmental / Green Belt / farmland protection	Many responses emphasise loss of countryside, impact on biodiversity, Green Belt, woodland (e.g., Kennel Wood), and Grade 2 farmland.
Opposition to scale of development	Strong view that proposed level of growth (multiple potential growth areas (CUD areas)) is far too high for the villages and undermines rural character.
Support for Option A / retain Green Belt	Preference for Option A and objection specifically to any development south of A556 (CUD03).
Site-specific concerns (CUD01–CUD05)	Numerous issues raised on individual sites including drainage, woodland loss, unsafe access points, flooding, and harm to village character.

Potential growth areas (Farndon)

Question SS 38

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Farndon do you consider to be the most suitable?

23 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for specific potential growth area options	Preferences expressed for FAR01, FAR02, FAR03 with differing rationales.
Infrastructure capacity concerns	Strong concern over infrastructure capacity, particularly school, GP, roads, parking, and utilities.
Flood risk & environmental constraints	Floodplain, biodiversity, heritage and footpath concerns.
Neighbourhood Plan priority and no further development	Two respondents commented on Farndon Neighbourhood Plans’ validity to 2030 emphasised; strong community opposition to growth.
Objection to scale of development	500+ homes viewed as excessive, harmful to village character.
Small scale development only	Support for only minimal, incremental growth.
Potential growth areas specific concerns	FAR01 flooding/ecology, FAR02 dangerous roads, FAR03 noise/odour.

Question SS 39

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Farndon?

50 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure capacity concerns	Comments cite inadequate roads, dangerous junctions, congestion, poor public transport, school and GP capacity issues.
Environmental and flood risk issues	Floodplain constraints on potential growth areas FAR01/FAR03, biodiversity concerns, agricultural land loss, greenspace value raised.
Neighbourhood Plan and local character	Compliance with Farndon Neighbourhood Plan, desire to retain village identity and avoid merging with Churton.
Objection to scale of development	500–1500 dwellings seen as disproportionate, unsustainable, damaging to rural community.
Potential growth area specific concerns	FAR01 flooding/access issues, FAR02 high-quality agricultural land and junction safety, FAR03 sports pitches and flooding.
Support for limited / targeted development	Two respondents accept small-scale development or prefer specific potential growth areas (mostly FAR03 or FAR01).
Consultation process concerns	Comments indicate poor communication, rushed consultation timeline.

Question SS 40

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Farndon when developing the new Local Plan?

41 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure capacity concerns	Major concerns about roads, junctions, parking, congestion, school and GP capacity, sewage, electricity and water systems.
Traffic and road safety issues	High street bottlenecks, narrow lanes, unsafe A534/Sibbersfield Lane junction, collisions, speeding, lack of parking, risks to pedestrians including school children.
Education capacity	Primary school already constrained following expansion; additional pupils not feasible; secondary school capacity concerns at Bishop Heber.
Health services pressure	Difficulty securing GP appointments, reliance on Tattenhall/Malpas, lack of transport, surgery parking limitations.
Environmental, flooding and agricultural land concerns	Floodplain constraints, sewage discharge into River Dee, loss of Grade 2/3 Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, biodiversity and environmental health issues.
Scale of development too large	500–1500 homes viewed as disproportionate, risk of doubling population, overwhelming infrastructure and rural character.
Neighbourhood Plan & settlement character	Concerns about village identity, conservation area impact, avoiding coalescence with Churton and others, Farndon Neighbourhood Plan priorities highlighted.
Potential growth area specific issues (FAR01/FAR02/FAR03)	FAR01: flooding/access; FAR02: dangerous roads/traffic (Sibbersfield Lane) and merging settlements; FAR03: access to A534 preferred but near sewage works.
Alternative development suggestions	Two respondents propose sites nearer Chester/A55; others suggest land near natural burial ground on Chester Road.
Support for limited / proportionate growth only	Some support for small‑scale growth with infrastructure improvements.

Potential growth areas (Frodsham)

Question SS 41

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable? 

408 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection & policy conflict	Residents overwhelmingly oppose development on Green Belt land, citing conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan, lack of exceptional circumstances, the existence of brownfield alternatives, and a deep wish to preserve Frodsham’s rural buffer, landscape character, prevent urban sprawl and long‑established planning protections.
Environmental impact – ancient woodland, wildlife, biodiversity	Objections highlight the irreplaceable nature of Hob Hey Wood as ancient woodland, a Site of Biological Interest, and a critical wildlife corridor. Concerns include irreversible biodiversity loss, species displacement, fragmentation of habitats, ecological sensitivity, and the long-term loss of mental and community wellbeing tied to this natural asset.
Traffic, highways, congestion and road safety	Many residents report that Frodsham’s roads are already beyond capacity, especially the A56 and surrounding estates. Frequent gridlock (especially during M56 congestion issues), safety concerns at Fluin Lane, Langdale Way, Townfield Lane, Bradley Lane, Kingsley Road, unsafe junctions, narrow lanes, and risks to school children generate widespread objection. Many state emergency access would be compromised and road safety would significantly decline.
Flood risk, drainage and sewer capacity	Comments repeatedly reference historic flooding on Langdale Way, and from fields around Hob Hey Wood, the need for underground storage tanks, and the crucial role the fields play as natural flood defences. Concerns include sewer overload, worsening climate impacts, surface water runoff, and the high risk of repeating past failures.
Health, education, dentists and community services capacity	Residents argue GP practices and dental surgeries are full, primary schools are oversubscribed, and community services (Scouts, leisure, clubs, allotments) are stretched. The scale of proposed development far exceeds infrastructure capacity, with no credible expansion plans or concrete commitments or funding for new services provided.
Air quality, light pollution and noise pollution	Frodsham is already within an Air Quality Management Area. Residents fear worsening emissions, more noise, and significant light pollution affecting human sleep and protected bat/moth species. Several references cite scientific evidence and official AQMA documents.
Settlement character, town identity and community cohesion	Residents worry development will create ribbon sprawl between Frodsham and Helsby, erasing their distinct identities. Many cite Neighbourhood Plan principles, heritage value, allotment and orchard loss, and fear isolated estates with poor social cohesion. Loss of Frodsham’s “distinctive” market town identity, urban sprawl joining Frodsham and Helsby, loss of rural views and open countryside, and deterioration of heritage and landscape setting
Mental health, wellbeing and social value of nature	Many describe Hob Hey Wood as essential to mental health, especially during COVID. It is a key community refuge for quiet recreation, nature connection, and exercise. Loss of woodland access is seen as a major threat to wellbeing.
Housing need, scale and alternatives	Residents challenge the justification for >1,000 homes, stating Frodsham’s need is ~250. Brownfield-first principles, empty buildings suitable for conversion, and stalled Helsby developments are cited as evidence the scale is unjustified.
Economic concerns – property values and local cost burden	A large subset of comments argue property values will fall, while costs for flood prevention, road upgrades, and services will rise. Residents believe developers benefit financially, while long-term burdens fall on the community.

Question SS 42

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Frodsham?

585 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection and policy compliance	Respondents overwhelmingly reject development on potential growth areas FRO01/FRO02 because the land is designated Green Belt and the council has not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” required by the National Planning Policy Framework. People argue that once Green Belt is breached, the precedent will open the door to further erosion of protected land. Many feel the plan conflicts with local policy, the Neighbourhood Plan, and national legislation, especially given alternative brownfield options.
Ancient woodland, wildlife and biodiversity (Hob Hey Wood)	Strong objections focus on the irreversible damage that development would cause to Hob Hey Wood an ancient, biodiverse woodland with over 800 recorded species and a Site of Biological Importance and the severing of critical wildlife corridors. People emphasise deterioration from light, noise, recreation pressure, pets, and irreversible ecological fragmentation that cannot be mitigated or recreated. Many describe the woodland as core to community identity, mental wellbeing, and local heritage.
Flood risk, drainage and hydrology failures	Respondents reference historic sewage flooding on Langdale Way, significant United Utilities engineering works, and the role of the existing green spaces as natural drainage systems. They warn that development will dramatically increase surface run‑off, overload drains, redirect floodwater into homes, and jeopardize insurance. The threat is described as both documented and foreseeable, not hypothetical.
Traffic, highways, access and emergency response	A major concern is that Frodsham is already heavily congested, with the A56 and other roads routinely gridlocked, especially during M56 incidents. Respondents highlight that Townfield Lane, Bradley Lane, Langdale Way and other feeder roads cannot physically accommodate construction traffic or hundreds of new homes. Many stress risks to emergency response, school safety, and overall movement within the town.
Pressure on local infrastructure (GPs, dentists, schools, transport, utilities)	Respondents state that GP surgeries, dental practices, schools, and utilities are already over capacity. Some highlight month‑long waits for NHS appointments and the inability of Helsby High to absorb additional students. Public transport insufficient and unreliable, and utilities (water/sewerage) already stressed. They argue no credible infrastructure plan has been presented and that adding hundreds of homes without guaranteed services would be irresponsible and unsustainable.
Air quality, noise and light pollution	Many stress that Frodsham is already an Air Quality Management Area and traffic‑driven pollution is a public health concern. Additional vehicle emissions combined with lighting from new homes will affect both wildlife (especially bats and moths) and human wellbeing. Noise from traffic and construction would further degrade residential amenity.
Community identity, character, landscape and mental wellbeing	Respondents fear that the development would erase the rural character of Frodsham, remove valued landscapes, and damage treasured walking routes and views. Many mention mental health benefits of Hob Hey Wood and green spaces. They argue the proposals would urbanise the town, degrade quality of life, and undermine what makes Frodsham desirable.
Social cohesion, antisocial behaviour and estate isolation	Several respondents warn that large estates on the edge of town unconnected to the town centre and lacking services often generate isolation, poor integration, antisocial behaviour, and social fragmentation. They note that National Planning Policy Framework guidance emphasises cohesive, inclusive community design, which they argue these proposals fail to achieve.
Consultation process, governance and transparency concerns	Some respondents say the consultation was poorly communicated, difficult to access, and perceived as intentionally opaque. Concerns include: no direct letters to residents; confusing online formats; misinformation at Q&A events; and questions about officer competence, evidence selection, and potential bias.

Question SS 43

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Frodsham when developing the new Local Plan?

410 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection and policy conflict	The overwhelming majority of respondents oppose the release of Green Belt land, arguing that potential growth areas FRO01/FRO02 are inappropriate for allocation; the Local Plan evidence base is insufficient; and the Council has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances required under the National Planning Policy Framework. They stress that the alternatives (brownfield, urban intensification) have not been exhausted; and development would breach long‑established policies designed to prevent urban sprawl, protect countryside character, preserve rural separation, and uphold environmental integrity.
Traffic congestion and road safety	Residents consistently describe current road conditions as already failing, with gridlock common on the A56 and side roads, especially during M56 incidents, single-lane pinch points (Townfield Lane, Bradley Lane), unsafe pedestrian routes, parking overflow, inadequate public transport links, lack of active travel infrastructure, and unmanageable construction traffic. Respondents fear that additional traffic from new developments would significantly worsen congestion, compromise emergency vehicle response times, and create unsafe conditions for walkers, cyclists, and schoolchildren.
Flood risk, surface water, and drainage capacity	Numerous residents cite a well‑documented history of flooding in the area, especially Langdale Way, emphasising that Hob Hey Wood and surrounding green fields and woodland that serve as essential natural drainage. They warn that replacing permeable land with housing would heighten surface water flooding, overload sewers, and concerns that flood risk guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and CWaC’s own Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is being ignored.
Impacts on Hob Hey Wood / Ancient Woodland and biodiversity	A strong theme emphasises the irreplaceable value of Hob Hey Wood as ancient woodland, habitat for rare species, a designated Site of Biological Interest, and a vital wildlife corridor. Respondents argue development would cause irreversible ecological damage, fragmentation of habitats, and loss of biodiversity.
Pressure on local services (GPs, Dentists, schools, public services)	Residents widely report that local health, education, and community services are already operating at or beyond capacity. They fear new housing would overwhelm these services further without secured, funded infrastructure upgrades.
Air quality, noise, and light pollution	Respondents warn that development will worsen Frodsham’s existing air quality issues (already within an Air Quality Management Area) and introduce additional light and noise pollution that would impact both residents and local wildlife, particularly nocturnal species.
Loss of community, amenity, and landscape character	Many residents describe the proposals as a threat to Frodsham’s distinctive identity as a market town surrounded by valued green space. Loss of countryside, allotments, recreational walking areas, fewer safe walking/cycling routes, reduced public wellbeing spaces, and incompatibility with the Neighbourhood Plan vision, is seen as harmful to wellbeing, mental health, and community cohesion.
Property values and local economic impact	A significant number of participants anticipate a decline in property values if there is a deterioration of the local environment, higher noise/pollution levels and local services degrade. They argue that while developers profit, long-term residents would shoulder the economic consequences.
Consultation process, transparency and governance concerns	Some respondents raise procedural concerns, stating the site‑selection process lacks transparency, clear evidence, or appropriate professional scrutiny. Comments request publication of methodology, competency frameworks, ecological scoring, traffic modelling, flood assessments, and evidence used to shortlist sites.

Potential growth areas (Helsby)

Question SS 44

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Helsby do you consider to be the most suitable?

28 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / oppose all options	Strong objection to any Green Belt release; argues exceptional circumstances not met, Helsby–Frodsham coalescence risk, harm to Areas of Special County Value, landscape and openness.
Infrastructure strain – schools, GP, traffic	Concerns that schools, GP practices and local services already at capacity; traffic through Helsby/Frodsham already severe.
Environmental harm – wildlife, pollution, green spaces	Concerns about destruction of habitats, light/air pollution, loss of green spaces essential for wellbeing.
Support for potential growth area - HEL03 as most suitable / grey belt justification	HEL03 supported by some due to containment by A56/A5117/railway, existing development, grey‑belt evidence, technical suitability, deliverability.
Support for HEL02 – sustainable location	Two respondents consider HEL02 as sustainable due to proximity to services, Tesco, school, flood‑free land, ability to deliver ~100 dwellings.
Support for HEL01 – limited development	Some support limited development at HEL01 or consider it closest to school.
Option A	Four respondents state Option A only.
Support for all mapped areas	One respondent supports all potential growth areas as mapped.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	One request for robust heritage assessment for any option.
Active travel priority	One respondent states that active travel should be central to planning.
No preferred area /none suitable	One respondent states none are suitable with the same objections as those for the Frodsham potential growth areas.
Other general reasoning / technical submissions	Includes two developer submissions in support of the potential growth areas - sustainability claims, technical flood/landscape comments.

Question SS 45

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Helsby?

44 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / oppose all potential growth areas (FRO01–FRO03, HEL01–HEL03)	Strong objection to Green Belt release; exceptional circumstances not demonstrated; concerns over loss of openness, countryside, settlement coalescence.
Infrastructure strain – traffic, schools, healthcare, services	A56/M56 congestion, GP and dental shortages, school capacity issues, lack of local services; claim that previous developments already overstretched facilities.
Environmental sensitivity – ancient woodland, Site of Biological Importance, ecology, marshes	Adjacent ancient woodland, wildlife corridors, marshland, SBI designations, protected species; impacts on migration routes and biodiversity.
Flood risk and drainage concerns	Flood zones identified in areas FR03/HEL01; surface flooding, sewage issues, water absorption loss, downstream flood risk.
Settlement character / village identity / wellbeing loss	Concerns about loss of rural identity, wellbeing impacts, overdevelopment, merging of Helsby and Frodsham.
Area-specific concerns: HEL02 unsuitable due to access/topography	Two respondents criticise area HEL02 for steep gradient, poor pedestrian access, constrained roads, heavy construction traffic impacts.
Area-specific assessments: HEL01 limited suitability	Two respondents consider area HEL01 as potentially acceptable at small scale; concerns about school congestion and A56 traffic.
Area-specific: HEL03 most suitable option	HEL03 identified by one respondent as the most appropriate due to flat land and proximity to Elton services.
Support for growth / developer submissions	Some support for Helsby growth if infrastructure is provided; larger allocations seen as needed for supporting facilities.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	On request for a robust heritage assessment.
Active travel priority	One respondent considers active travel should be central to decision-making.
Other site promotion – cemetery / burial space need	One respondent requests that land near area HEL01 considers cemetery expansion.
Other objections – previous development incomplete	One respondent argues that current growth sites are unfinished or unoccupied; new allocations premature.
General limited-support comments	Two respondents submit general statements of limited/no support.

Question SS 46

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Helsby when developing the new Local Plan?

15 comments

Theme	Summary
Traffic congestion and M56 diversion impacts	Concerns about severe gridlock through Helsby/Frodsham during M56 issues; local roads and SatNav diversions causing blockages, pollution and risks to emergency services.
Infrastructure strain – GP, schools, dentists	GPs already at capacity; schools full; NHS dentists difficult to access; risks of overloading services with 1000+ new homes.
Lack of Infrastructure Delivery Plan	Concerns that no confirmed Infrastructure Delivery Plan exists and development should only occur where infrastructure can support it.
Flood risk and environmental constraints	Areas HEL01 and FR03 sit within flood risk zones; development would worsen flooding; concerns about marshes and agricultural land.
Green Belt protection / preserve open land	Some objections to Green Belt loss and desire to retain green spaces important to physical/mental health.
Loss of habitats / wildlife / environmental quality	Concerns about destruction of habitats, loss of green space, increased pollution and light impacts.
Brownfield-first argument	Objection that brownfield land still exists and should be prioritised.
Excessive growth beyond Local Plan targets	Helsby has exceeded its housing target (300 by 2030) with 326 delivered plus 350 more permitted; concerns about piecemeal approach.
Overdevelopment impacts on community and services	Concerns about fragmented development, difficult site linkages, reliance on cars and lack of coordinated planning.
Minerals safeguarding uncertainty	One request for clarity on minerals safeguarding and access to MRAs as MSAs not shown.
Transport / bus service limitations	Limited bus routes beyond A56; reliance on cars expected.
Need for new junction / transport upgrades	One suggestion that new M56 junction 13 required; concerns about station parking and increased local traffic.
Developer support – no infrastructure constraints	One developer asserts technical studies show no key constraints for HEL03; supports continued development.
Agricultural land quality (Best and Most Versatile) concerns	Sites involve Grade 2/3 farmland; one respondent requests full agricultural surveys.
General objections – none of the growth areas suitable	One statement that local area cannot take further growth.

Potential growth areas (Kelsall)

Question SS 47

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Kelsall do you consider to be the most suitable?

21 comments

Theme	Summary
Retain Green Belt / choose Option A	Respondents prefer Option A to retain the Green Belt and avoid releasing land in this location.
Preference for area KEL02 (for reasons: defensible A54, proximity to services, bus route, long-term strategy)	Multiple responses identify area KEL02 as the most suitable area for growth with better containment, access, and service proximity (e.g. Chester Road/Bellway land).
Preference for area KEL01 / site promotion at Green Lane Farm	Preference expressed for area KEL01; separate representation promotes Green Lane Farm as a logical, sustainable extension available for delivery.
Mixed approach – split growth across both areas KEL01 & KEL02	One suggestion to take the halves of areas KEL01 and KEL02 closest to Chester Road; also queries absence of employment/mixed use land.
Agricultural land quality / protect productive farmland	One respondent raised concerns about loss of productive agricultural land; if development required, KEL02 preferred as poorer quality land and more contained by A54.
Settlement separation (Kelsall–Willington) and Neighbourhood Plan	Risk that area KEL01 would narrow the important gap between Kelsall and Willington; requests due regard to Kelsall & Willington Neighbourhood Plan and its “important gap.”
Infrastructure and capacity constraints (highways, schools, health)	Existing and cumulative growth has not been matched by infrastructure; concerns include A51 congestion, wider network pinch points, and service capacity.
Public transport limitations / not in transport corridor	One respondent notes poor bus connectivity in Kelsall (not included in transport corridor) and lack of post office; cautions about travel demand.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent states that any preferred option should be informed by a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings.
Active travel priority	One respondent requests that active travel be at the forefront of strategy and detailed site planning.
Alternative site suggestion – KEL03 (east of Kelsall)	One respondent states that alongside a preference for KEL01, a third growth area KEL03 to the east of Kelsall is suggested for consideration.
Green Belt status clarification	One respondent observes that both KEL01 and KEL02 are outside the Green Belt; traffic impacts on Vicars Cross Road/A51 remain a concern.
Options clarity / duplication concern	One respondent comments that Options B and C appear identical; preference registered for Option A.
General preference statement	One respondent indicates “SS 47 01 looks the best option.”
Flood risk and drainage	One respondent submits concerns that releasing green areas will increase surface runoff and exacerbate flood and sewage issues (e.g., Langdale Way); conflict with flood strategy.

Question SS 48

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Kelsall?

28 comments

Theme	Summary
Area HEL02 concerns – topography, access, flooding, settlement gap	One respondent submits that area HEL02 is considered unsuitable due to steep gradients, poor access, surface water runoff, constrained roads, and impact on Helsby–Alvanley settlement gap.
Objection to development east of Waste Lane – Sandstone Ridge landscape	One respondent states that development east of Waste Lane considered inappropriate due to sensitive landscape around Sandstone Ridge.
Kelsall – objections to scale of growth (125 homes etc.)	Concerns that growth would overwhelm services (school, GP), worsen traffic, and harm village character; request focus on brownfield.
KEL01 access, construction impacts, flooding and culvert issues	Objection to KEL01 due to narrow roads, unsafe access near school, repeated construction traffic breaches, and blocked culvert causing flooding.
Kelsall infrastructure concerns – education, traffic, drainage	Concerns about school capacity, traffic increases, lack of facilities, medical centre capacity, drainage issues.
Heritage / historic environment assessment requirement	One respondent requests a robust assessment of heritage assets for any option.
Protect Kelsall–Tarvin settlement boundary	Opposition to westward expansion of Kelsall to preserve distinction between Kelsall and Tarvin.
General response – No comment	One response simply states No.
Landscape and character – KEL01 unsuitable	Area KEL01 said to harm landscape and local character.
KEL02 objection – Green Belt development questioned	One respondent notes area KEL02 is mostly in Green Belt; questions why east of Kelsall not considered.
Kelsall–Willington Neighbourhood Plan principles – protect rural feel, limit growth	One detailed submission arguing for reduced growth, Green Belt review, priority for KEL02 over KEL01, preserving rural setting and agricultural land.
Support for area KEL02 – sustainable access, defensible boundaries, lower landscape sensitivity	Several respondents considered area KEL02 as most logical due to proximity to services, A54 boundary, and location among existing development.
HEL03 support – sustainable location near A56 corridor	One respondent states that HEL03 considered most sustainable for growth given existing development and motorway access.
Support for KEL02 site allocation – Chester Road land	Two respondents promote land north of Chester Road within KEL02 as suitable for allocation.

Question SS 49

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Kelsall when developing the new Local Plan?

8 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure capacity constraints in Kelsall	Concerns about inadequate infrastructure including drainage, water pressure, parking, school capacity, constrained road junctions and narrow lanes.
Minerals safeguarding uncertainty	One respondent requests clarity regarding minerals safeguarding and access to Mineral Resource Assessments for proposed growth areas.
Service and facility limitations	One respondent notes lack of local facilities: limited shop provision, GP list full, lack of post office, poor bus service, and topography constraints for cycling.
General objection – no comment / no support	Two respondent submit a simple statement of “No.” or indicating no comments.
Developer-led support for growth with mitigation	One promoter asserts no constraints to development at Chester Road with ability to deliver net gain, drainage strategy, S106 contributions and necessary highways/education mitigation.
Agricultural land and environmental constraints	One respondent notes presence of Green Belt, Delamere Forest, Sandstone Trail, Eddisbury Hill, and Grade 2/3 agricultural land requiring detailed surveys under Natural England guidance.

Potential growth areas (Malpas)

Question SS 50

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Malpas do you consider to be the most suitable?

20 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for MAL01 as preferred growth location	MAL01 considered logical extension with strong boundaries, suitable residential potential, sustainable and deliverable.
Support for MAL04 / landscape sensitivity	MAL04 identified as most appropriate due to sustainable transport proximity and heritage safeguarding.
Support for multiple sites (MAL01–MAL05)	Two respondents list all sites without preference.
Support for Option A / retain Green Belt	Some respondents select Option A to avoid development and preserve landscape.
Opposition to development / none suitable	Some respondents claim the village will be surrounded, character harmed, options identical or not suitable.
Need for infrastructure improvements	Requests that new development must be supported by bus, school, health facilities.
Heritage and historic environment	One respondent requests robust heritage assessments for all options.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent comments that active travel should be prioritised in growth planning.
Support for area MAL03 (Mastiff Lane)	One respondent considers that area MAL03 seen as sustainable logical extension.
Neighbourhood Plan importance	One respondent notes that Malpas Neighbourhood Plan and its revision must be considered.

Question SS 51

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Malpas?

23 comments

Theme	Summary
Malpas – greenfield harm / character loss	Strong concerns that scale of development around Malpas would erode rural character, harm conservation area, overwhelm infrastructure, and conflict with vision of protecting countryside.
Malpas – access and site suitability	Areas MAL01 and MAL05 viewed as best options due to fewer access constraints; MAL2–4 criticised for extreme access issues and landscape impact.
Malpas – support for MAL04	MAL04 highlighted by one respondent as well‑contained, good landscape fit, ability to enhance Public Right of Way and active travel.
Infrastructure – schools and healthcare pressure	Concerns that development requires major expansion of medical and school facilities.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests that any option include robust assessment of heritage and setting.

Question SS 52

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Malpas when developing the new Local Plan?

8 comments

Theme	Summary
Traffic impacts through Malpas High Street	Concern that southern sites (MAL02–MAL04) would increase traffic over High Street, worsening already constrained local network.
Minerals safeguarding – need for MRAs	One respondent requests confirmation that minerals safeguarding has been considered; MSAs not shown on constraint plans, limiting ability to comment.
Impact on rural character / infrastructure overpowered	Concern that large-scale development would suburbanise Malpas, overpower its rural character, narrow high street, and heritage setting.
General “No” response	One respondent simply states “No.” to the question.
Infrastructure inadequacy – schools, drainage, water supply	Schools already at capacity; open space must be created; drainage & water supply inadequate after last decade’s development; growth of 500 dwellings not possible without major upgrades.
Support for MAL04 – sustainable, well‑integrated, place‑making focus	One submission argues MAL04 is deliverable, protects heritage, integrates movement networks, delivers BNG, supports long‑term vitality.
Landscape, heritage, Public Rights of Way, Best and Most Versatile Land, setting constraints	One respondent highlights Sandstone Ridge, Roman road, Sandstone Trail, Bishop Bennet Way, Grade 2 farmland and historic parkland at Cholmondeley; calls for detailed Best and Most Versatile Land surveys.

Potential growth areas (Neston and Parkgate)

Question SS 53

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Neston and Parkgate do you consider to be the most suitable?

36 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for NEP areas (NEP01–NEP05)	Respondents identify areas NEP01–NEP05 as suitable based on proximity to services, access, topography, sustainable location.
Strong support for area NEP02	NEP02 repeatedly cited as most appropriate location for mixed-use growth due to transport links, access, and location adjacent to existing development.
Opposition to area NEP01 and/or NEP06	Concerns regarding landscape sensitivity, biodiversity, amenity, heritage settings, heavily used footpaths, and loss of valued open countryside.
Opposition to scale of development	Respondents argue proposed housing numbers would overwhelm infrastructure and settlement character.
Preference for Option A / reject growth	Some respondents choose Option A, rejecting all NEP areas or any Green Belt release.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	Requests for robust heritage assessment to inform site selection.
Infrastructure constraints	Cited issues include roads (A540), congestion, flooding, drainage, school capacity, healthcare and public transport inadequacy.
Environmental concerns	Impacts on biodiversity, high-value habitats, trees, agricultural land, and landscape character.
Support for areas NEP03–NEP05	Some identify NEP03–NEP05 as most suitable in order of preference.
Alternative/brownfield focus	Proposals to use derelict town centre land instead of Green Belt.
Active travel priority	One respondent calls for active travel to be prioritised in growth planning.

Question SS 54

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Neston and Parkgate?

92 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / complete opposition to development	Majority of respondents strongly oppose any development within the Green Belt across all NEP potential growth areas, citing irreversible landscape loss, separation of settlements, heritage harm, and conflict with national and local policy.
Environmental impact / wildlife and habitat concerns	Several respondents highlight significant risks to biodiversity, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) habitats, Dee Estuary wildlife (curlew, geese), farmland species, hedgerows, ancient woodland, and overall nature recovery objectives.
Flooding, drainage and sewage infrastructure failures	Major concerns about severe drainage issues, winter flooding, sewage overspills into marshes and estuary, surface runoff, outdated sewers, and risks worsening with development.
Traffic, highway safety and transport limitations	Strong objections based on unsafe narrow lanes (Leighton Road, Mill Lane, Boathouse Lane), inadequate public transport, poor rail links, congestion, lack of cycling and walking infrastructure.
Pressure on social infrastructure (GPs, dentists, schools, emergency services)	Respondents consistently reference overstretched essential services with no capacity to absorb large-scale growth.
Heritage, Conservation Areas and landscape setting	Concerns that development would harm the character of Parkgate, Neston Conservation Area, historic routeways (Cuckoo Lane), traditional farmland and coastal landscape.
Brownfield-first and empty homes priority	Many argue brownfield land, derelict sites, empty homes and industrial areas should be prioritised before Green Belt release.
Concerns specific to area NEP01 (Parkgate North – Boathouse Lane)	NEP01 seen as most harmful site: coastal sensitivity, wildlife habitats, high flood risk, traffic bottlenecks, and proximity to Conservation Area.
Concerns specific to area NEP06 (Little Neston East – Mill Lane)	NEP06 criticised for dangerous access routes, conservation sensitivities, impact on Leahurst Veterinary School, agricultural land and ecological corridors.
Support for limited development in areas NEP03–NEP05	Some respondents support modest development east of Neston near A540 as more logical/less harmful.
General objection to survey process and consultation quality	Some concerns over poor communication, lack of clarity, insufficient detail, lack of transparency and inadequate public engagement.

Question SS 55

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Neston and Parkgate when developing the new Local Plan?

40 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure capacity (schools, GPs, dentists, services)	Respondents raise extensive concerns about insufficient school places, GP capacity, NHS dentists availability, lack of social care provision, and overstretched local services.
Transport constraints (roads, congestion, buses, rail)	Many comments highlight narrow roads, poor bus frequency, lack of direct rail links, inadequate parking, unsafe junctions, and congestion especially on A540 and local access roads.
Flooding, drainage and sewage capacity	Widespread concerns about surface water flooding, inadequate drainage systems, overloaded sewage works, storm overflow discharges into Dee Estuary, and risks of worsening pollution.
Environmental constraints (biodiversity, estuary, protected areas)	Comments highlight proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, RSPB reserve, ancient woodland, wildlife habitats, salt marsh impacts, agricultural land use, and threats to biodiversity and nature recovery.
Green Belt protection and landscape character	Strong objections to releasing Green Belt, emphasising loss of openness, coalescence with Wirral settlements, landscape harm, and erosion of rural character.
Heritage and historic environment	Concerns regarding conservation villages, mining heritage, historic settings, and need for proper heritage impact assessments.
Site-specific objections (areas NEP01–NEP06)	Detailed objections include access constraints, narrow lanes, flooding, landscape sensitivity, and disproportionate scale relative to Parkgate/Neston.
Social and community impacts	Concerns about exacerbating inequality, loss of community cohesion, lack of policing, eldercare gaps, and pressures on vulnerable groups.
Active travel emphasis	Respondents argue for improved walking and cycling routes and prioritising non-car travel modes.
Minerals safeguarding	One respondent requests that minerals safeguarding areas be mapped and considered.
Brownfield-first / prioritising derelict sites	Suggestions to develop brownfield, empty commercial sites and infill opportunities before considering Green Belt.

Potential growth areas (Tarporley)

Question SS 56

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Tarporley do you consider to be the most suitable?

23 comments

Theme	Summary
Site promotion – TARP03/TARP04	Two developers submit representations promoting land at Birch Heath Farm and Brickfield Farm as suitable growth areas.
Preference for specific TARP areas	Support for TARP02 as infill; TARP04 and TARP05 for access to A49 and public transport.
Option A – retain Green Belt	Multiple respondents choose Option A to protect Green Belt.
Heritage and historic environment	One respondent requests a robust heritage assessment.
No choice / options unclear	One respondent states all 3 options appear identical.
Opposition – none suitable	One respondent states that no options are suitable.
General objection or minimal comment	Two respondents submit brief statements objecting by listing sites or noting no comment.
Neighbourhood Plan importance	Tarporley Neighbourhood Planning boundaries should be considered; dialogue requested.
Detailed site-specific submission – area TARP04	One respondent submits support for a site within TARP04 for allocation.
Detailed assessment of TARP05	One respondent submits comments on deliverability, landownership complexity, impact on Conservation Area.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent states that active travel should be prioritised.

Question SS 57

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Tarporley?

30 comments

Theme	Summary
Objection to development in areas TARP01/TARP02	Some respondents object due to flooding, rural character loss, infrastructure strain
Flooding and drainage concerns	Fields flood, drainage problems, sinkholes reported
Infrastructure constraints	Roads, GP, schools overstretched
Highways and access issues	Narrow unsafe roads, poor access, visibility issues
Heritage and landscape impact	Need historic environment assessment; harm to landscape and views
Agricultural land protection	Protect agricultural land and food production
Support for area TARP02 as logical site	Some respondents prefer TARP02 as best fit; TARP1 struggles with access
Growth should be constrained	Limit growth to protect village character
Promoter support for TARP01	Two respondents support allocating area TARP01
Constraints in TARP02	One respondent cites issues with sewage works capacity, flood zones and questions deliverability

Question SS 58

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Tarporley when developing the new Local Plan?

10 comments

Theme	Summary
Highway congestion / traffic concerns	Tarporley High Street and Birch Heath Road become congested especially at peak and school times; need more parking and bus/transport hub.
Minerals safeguarding	Unclear if minerals safeguarding considered; site MRAs requested; MSAs missing on constraint plans.
Infrastructure capacity – education, healthcare, leisure	Tarporley lacks capacity in schools, GP, leisure; western sites (TARP03–05) offer better opportunity for new facilities and sustainable transport.
General objection	Simple “No” response from one respondent.
Road network cannot cope / need new main road	Existing single through‑route inadequate; need parallel main road; space needed for expanded schools and public open space.
Multiple existing capacity issues	GP, schools, roads, parking, fire service, foul & surface water systems already overloaded; development must address these.
Supportive – Tarporley well‑placed for growth	One respondent states thatsTarporley has good range of services and can support sustainable growth.
Best and Most Versatile agricultural land	Grade 2/3 land requires detailed agricultural surveys before development.
Infrastructure strain – major cumulative issues	List of deficits: parking, sewers, drainage, limited transport, health centre capacity, electricity/water, congestion, pollution, lack of affordability noted.

Potential growth areas (Tarvin)

Question SS 59

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Tarvin do you consider to be the most suitable?

21 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for area TARV02 as most suitable	Many respondents consider TARV02 the most appropriate growth area; citing sustainability, being located adjacent to existing development, avoiding bypass encroachment, good access to services.
Preference for area TARV03	Some respondents explicitly favour area TARV03.
Support all mapped areas	One respondent supports all mapped development areas.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests for robust heritage assessment to inform the best option.
Strong preference for Option A – retain Green Belt	Multiple respondents choose Option A and object to growth; emphasise historic village character and desire to protect open space.
Traffic and road capacity concerns	Concerns regarding traffic volume on A51 into Chester.
Active travel emphasis	Active travel should be prioritised.
Neighbourhood Plan compliance	One respondent notes that the Tarvin Neighbourhood Plan supports only infill development within settlement boundary.

Question SS 60

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Tarvin?

25 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / objection to development	Many respondents object to building on Green Belt land including area TARV01 and TARV03; concerns about loss of open countryside, rural character, and agricultural land.
Village character, views and heritage impacts	Concerns about harm to heritage character, historic environment, important amenity areas such as Townfield Lane, and loss of countryside views.
Infrastructure constraints – roads, congestion, drainage	Traffic congestion on the A51/A54, narrow local roads, poor access to area TARV03, drainage problems after heavy rain, and infrastructure unable to support further development.
Service capacity – healthcare and transport	GP access already difficult, public transport congestion problems, and need for significant improvements to road network.
Support for area TARV02 / sustainable development focus	TARV02 seen as logical sustainable growth area within current settlement boundary, avoids Green Belt, supports mixed-use development and low‑carbon community principles.
Preference ranking – TARV03 logical infill, followed by TARV02, oppose TARV01	Series of identical responses stating TARV03 offers logical infill, TARV02 next most logical, and TARV01 would break the A54 boundary.
Objection to scale of proposed growth (500 homes)	500 homes considered excessive for Tarvin; risks overwhelming facilities, harming village character, and inconsistent with Neighbourhood Plan.
Support for alternative site east of Tarporley Road	Two respondenst suggests land east of Tarporley Road as more suitable for 250–300 homes, previously supported in Neighbourhood Plan drafts.
General support for westward/northeast expansion	One respondent submits some support for growth along transport corridors including into Green Belt.

Question SS 61

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Tarvin when developing the new Local Plan?

11 comments

Theme	Summary
Healthcare capacity – Tarvin GP already overstretched	Concern that Tarvin GP practice is already struggling to meet demand and cannot cope with further population growth.
Minerals safeguarding / need for MRAs	One respondent requests clarity on minerals safeguarding and calls for detailed Minerals Resource Assessments; MSAs not shown on constraint plans.
Objection to Green Belt release (areas TAR01, TAR03)	Green Belt should not be developed; exceptional circumstances not demonstrated; prefer development at area TAR02 instead.
Access to green spaces / pedestrian safety barriers	A51/A54 roads block safe access to countryside; development would worsen limited pedestrian access to open spaces.
Local heritage and settlement character concerns	Townfield Lane and village heritage setting should be preserved; development on Green Belt would harm rural character.
Infrastructure constraints – schools, drainage, parking	School places insufficient; drainage and water supply inadequate; village shops lack parking; growth exceeds infrastructure capacity.
Access and road capacity concerns	Area TARV03 accessible only via narrow lanes unsuited to through‑traffic.
Strategic transport constraints	A556 is key trunk route; diversion requirements are major constraint.
Support with conditions – good local infrastructure but requires careful management	One respondent notes Tarvin has generally good infrastructure but future growth must be managed; site free of major environmental constraints.
Green Belt and Best and Most Versatile agricultural land	One respondent suggests that Green Belt north/west and Grade 2/3 farmland requires detailed survey before considering development.

Potential growth areas (Tattenhall)

Question SS 62

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Tattenhall do you consider to be the most suitable?

19 comments

Theme	Summary
Heritage / historic environment assessment	Calls for robust assessment of heritage assets and settings.
Preference for Option A / retain Green Belt	Some respondents choose Option A or retaining Green Belt.
Options identical / unclear choice	One respondent notes that all three options appear identical.
Opposition to development scale	One respondent describes mapped plan as surrounding village and doubling size.
New settlement proposal	One respondent suggests creating a new town near railway/canal instead of expanding Tattenhall.
Site references (TAT01, TAT02)	One respondent identifies TAT01 and TAT02 as growth areas.
Prefer sites with access to A41	One respondent prefers development where access to A41 is easier.
All sites supported but not to mapped extent	One respondent supports all sites but objects to the scale.
Support areas close to village centre	One respondent prefers areas within walking distance (TAT03–05).
Active travel emphasis	One respondent suggests that active travel should be prioritised.
Support for TAT02	Two respondents specifically support area TAT02.
Neighbourhood Plan importance	One respondent states that the Neighbourhood Plan supports small‑scale development.
Support for TAT05 (400 homes)	One respondent supports allocating Frog Lane for 400 homes with strategic benefits.
Support for TAT01	One respondent considers TAT01 most suitable growth location.

Question SS 63

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Tattenhall?

14 comments

Theme	Summary
Infrastructure and service constraints	Comments highlight inadequate road network, dangerous high street congestion, and overstretched GP and school capacity.
Green Belt protection / objection to development	One respondent submits an objection to any building on Green Belt land.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	One respondent requests a robust heritage assessment to inform preferred options.
Village character / rural setting concerns	Concerns that Tattenhall is a small rural village already overdeveloped, with historic landscape and limited school capacity.
Alternative development strategy suggestions	One respondent suggests focusing development near the railway, incorporate new station, canal, and local facilities like the Ice Cream Farm.
Settlement gap protection	Need to preserve gaps between Tattenhall and Newton/Gatesheath.
Design / layout concerns	Criticism of “doughnut development”, lack of connectivity and loss of countryside views.
Parish Council position on infrastructure	Parish council recognises development will occur but emphasises existing infrastructure pressures and need for significant investment.
Protection of best and most versatile agricultural land	Requests that no development occur on high‑grade agricultural land.
Deliverability concerns / landowner intentions	Concerns that some allocated or mapped growth areas may not be deliverable due to landowner not intending to develop.

Question SS 64

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Tattenhall when developing the new Local Plan?

9 comments

Theme	Summary
Healthcare capacity concerns	Doctors surgery at/beyond capacity; need larger facility; further development worsens pressure.
Sewerage and wastewater constraints	Sewer system at capacity; frequent discharges; no planned investment; WwTW overloaded.
Flooding and surface water issues	Regular flooding cutting off village; attenuation failures; roads impassable; properties affected.
Transport and road network constraints	Roads in poor condition; junctions at capacity; speeding; car dominance; lack of safe infrastructure.
Public transport limitations	Minimal bus services; limited opportunities to access work/services; need improved services.
Active travel concerns	Active travel infrastructure insufficient; developments dominated by private cars.
Best and Most Versatile agricultural land protection	Request detailed surveys for Grade 2/3 farmland to determine suitability.
Site availability constraints	Drumlan Hall Farm included without landowner consent; site not available reducing growth area potential.
Need for strategic infrastructure benefits	Landowner promotes ability to deliver cricket, community and health facilities through development.
Development needed to support existing services	Argument that new homes needed to sustain buses, shops, school; developer contributions improve facilities.

Potential growth areas (Acton Bridge station)

Question SS 65

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Acton Bridge station do you consider to be the most suitable?

44 comments

Theme	Summary
Green Belt protection / Option A	Majority oppose development; all sites are Green Belt and should remain so; strong support for Option A.
Unsuitable rural village / lack of services	Acton Bridge described as small rural farming village with no school, no shop, no GP, no post office; unsuitable for growth.
Poor public transport / unsustainable transport corridor	Station has infrequent trains; does not serve key destinations; no buses; residents rely on cars; designation as sustainable transport corridor rejected.
Road safety / congestion / unsafe walking routes	Railway bridge dangerous; narrow rural roads; speeding; congestion; poor pavements; hazardous for school children.
Flooding / drainage concerns	Area experiences flooding; more development will worsen run‑off and flood risk.
Infrastructure capacity issues	Local schools, doctors, dentists already overstretched; physical infrastructure unfit for additional population.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests robust heritage assessment for any proposed development.
Support for limited development / specific sites	Some support areas ACB01–ACB02 or land east towards Weaverham as least harmful or most logical.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent states active travel should guide planning.
No suitable areas / None supported	Some respondents choose none of the potential growth areas as appropriate.

Question SS 66

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Acton Bridge station?

50 comments

Theme	Summary
Opposition to Growth Option C / Scale of development	Strong objection to large-scale development (up to 1100 homes) viewed as disproportionate, transforming rural village character and overwhelming services.
Green Belt protection / loss of agricultural land	Development opposed due to Green Belt designation and value of actively used farmland.
Transport unsuitability / reliance on cars	Station judged unsuitable: infrequent trains, no bus service, limited parking; majority of residents would still rely on cars, undermining sustainable transport claims.
Infrastructure capacity issues	Lack of shops, schools, GP services, utilities capacity, and inadequate road network cited as reasons development is unsupportable.
Road safety concerns	Narrow roads, blind bends, speeding, unsafe walking routes, previous accidents, conflicts with farm machinery, and dangerous bridge.
Flood risk / drainage issues	Flooding already occurs; development expected to worsen run-off and flood risk.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests a robust heritage and setting assessment for any development.
Limited support / infill only	Some support for sympathetic building or limited infill but reject large-scale development.
General objection / none suitable	Some respondents state that no areas are suitable for development.

Question SS 67

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Acton Bridge station when developing the new Local Plan?

38 comments

Theme	Summary
Lack of infrastructure / services	Acton Bridge lacks basic services including shops, schools, GP, post office; existing facilities in nearby settlements already at capacity.
Transport unsuitability / poor public transport	Station has limited destinations, infrequent trains, no disabled access, inadequate parking; bus services minimal or non-existent.
Road safety concerns / congestion	Narrow lanes, blind bends, speeding, HGV traffic, dangerous bridge, unsafe walking routes, parking issues causing hazards.
Flooding / drainage concerns	Increased run‑off would worsen flooding; existing watercourses already back up; climate change exacerbating flood risk.
Green Belt and landscape impact	Concerns about loss of Green Belt and rural character; risk of village being overwhelmed or merged with larger settlements.
Unsuitable scale of development / harms village character	Large-scale proposals seen as disproportionate; fear of losing rural identity, community cohesion, and increased crime.
Station-specific constraints	Bridge structurally weak; platforms too short; hazardous access; no step-free access; parking pressures.
Minerals safeguarding queries	One respondent requests confirmation that minerals safeguarding areas have been fully considered; MRAs requested.
Limited supportive comments	Some note limited school capacity available and suggest transport improvements; very small minority not fully opposed.

Potential growth areas (Capenhurst station)

Question SS 68

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Capenhurst station do you consider to be the most suitable?

11 comments

Theme	Summary
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings.
Preference for Option C	One respondent states a preference for Option C.
Preference for Option A	Two respondent support Option A (retain Green Belt / limited growth).
Support all mapped areas / potential GB expansion	One respondent supports all mapped areas with further Green Belt expansion considered appropriate.
Alternative spatial logic – favour Great Sutton/Hope Farm direction	One respondent argues development should expand Great Sutton/Hope Farm toward the station rather than altering Capenhurst’s distinct character.
Support for CAP01	One respondent identifies a preference for area CAP01.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent states that active travel should be at the forefront of planning.
Green Belt protection – Capenhurst station	One respondent states that Capenhurst station is in Green Belt and the area should not be built up.

Question SS 69

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Capenhurst station?

24 comments

Theme	Summary
Lack of services / unsustainable location	Capenhurst lacks amenities beyond a station, school, church; development seen as unsustainable.
Preference for Option A / protect Green Belt	Respondents support Option A and oppose development due to Green Belt value.
Support for Option B over C	One respondent argues Option B is more sustainable due to existing services in main settlements.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests a robust heritage assessment.
Rail service concerns	One respondent submits that services at Capenhurst are intermittent; reliability improvements needed if station use is expected.
Mixed views on Capenhurst suitability	Some see potential for limited development given rail access; others caution about Green Belt and context.
Alternative spatial preference	One respondent suggests developing Great Sutton/Hope Farm direction as more logical.
Site constraints: nuclear facility proximity	One respondent states that area CAP02 has reduced viability due to proximity to Urenco nuclear facility.
Infrastructure constraints (roads, traffic)	One respondent comments that local highways deteriorating; traffic impacts expected on A5117/Dunkirk Way.

Question SS 70

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Capenhurst station when developing the new Local Plan?

4 comments

Theme	Summary
Minerals safeguarding / need for MRAs	One respondent comments that it is unclear whether minerals safeguarding was considered; requests sight of detailed Minerals Resource Assessments (MRAs) for sites within MSAs.
Green Belt and Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land	One respondent highlights Green Belt constraints and need for detailed surveys of Grade 2 or 3 land to assess Best and Most Versatile (BMV) status.

Potential growth areas (Delamere station)

Question SS 71

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Delamere station do you consider to be the most suitable?

17 comments

Theme	Summary
Strong preference for Option A – retain Green Belt	Majority of respondents oppose development at Delamere and support Option A, citing preservation of Green Belt, rural character, and protection of Delamere Forest.
Delamere Forest protection / environmental sensitivity	Development considered inappropriate due to ecological importance, wildlife habitats, landscape value, and tourism significance of Delamere Forest.
Infrastructure constraints – rural location, insufficient services	Concerns that the area lacks essential infrastructure including schools, healthcare, and emergency services; rural character deemed unsuitable for growth.
Transport concerns – unsafe roads, traffic hazards, poor rail service	Issues raised about dangerous road conditions, past accidents, congestion near forest access, and limited/indirect train services.
Not a sustainable transport corridor	Respondents argue train services are too infrequent or indirect, increasing car dependency and making the area unsuitable for a sustainable transport-based allocation.
Heritage / historic environment assessment required	One respondent requests a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent suggests that active travel should be prioritised in planning and development decisions.

Question SS 72

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Delamere station?

33 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for Option B over Option C	Option B considered more sustainable due to focus on existing main urban settlements.
Heritage / historic environment assessment	One respondent requests a robust assessment of heritage assets and settings.
Unsustainable location / lack of services	Delamere lacks services; development would rely on private vehicles.
No infrastructure	Infrastructure insufficient to support growth.
Sustainable transport corridor disputed / poor rail service	Concerns rail is too slow/infrequent to justify development.
Query site omission	One respondent questions why area near Delamere Farm Shop not identified.
Green Belt protection / award‑winning rural station	Green Belt should not be developed; station’s rural setting valued.
Adjacent land promotion	One respondent promotes land adjacent to DEL01 as equally suitable and deliverable.
General objection (“No”)	Respondent objects with no further detail.
Alternative location suggested	One respondent suggests area alongside A556 more appropriate.
Environmental and social sensitivity of Delamere	Forested area highly sensitive; development risks ecological and recreational harm.
Unsustainable for growth beyond Local Service Centre scale	Several respondents comment that the station alone does not justify scale of development; community lacks facilities.

Question SS 73

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Delamere station when developing the new Local Plan?

10 comments

Theme	Summary
Minerals safeguarding constraints	One respondent requests clarity on minerals safeguarding and asks for detailed Minerals Resource Assessments for all proposed sites; notes MSAs not shown on constraint plans.
Rail service frequency and affordability concerns	Concerns that train frequency and cost are critical to whether people would actually use rail services.
Highway safety – dangerous Vale Royal Abbey Arms junction	One respondent identifies the crossroads at Vale Royal Abbey Arms as a dangerous accident hotspot worsened by additional development.
Traffic congestion – Delamere Forest bottlenecks	One respondent notes existing congestion due to proximity to well‑used Delamere Forest facilities.
Unsuitable rail station – unreliable/limited service	One respondent states that the station is small, poorly serviced and frequently has cancelled trains; questions growth justification if the station were to close.
General objection (“No”)	One respondent states simply “No.”
Comprehensive list of constraints – road, PT, schools, NHS, emergency cover, environment, tourism	One respondent highlights major constraints including narrow rural roads, poor rail frequency, oversubscribed schools, limited healthcare provision, slow emergency response, biodiversity impacts, and risks to tourism value of Delamere Forest.
Lack of infrastructure – only a train station	One respondent states that there is no infrastructure other than a train station with limited services.
Green Belt, woodland protection and Best and Most Versatile land assessment	One respondent emphasises the importance of Delamere Forest as wildlife habitat; calls for protection of Green Belt and detailed surveys of Grade 2/3 farmland to assess Best and Most Versatile land.

Potential growth areas (Elton station)

Question SS 74

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Elton station do you consider to be the most suitable?

16 comments

Theme	Summary
Industrial constraints / Protos Energy Recovery Facility buffering	One respondent comments on the need for adequate separation, buffering and mitigation between new residential allocations and existing/future industrial, waste and energy operations including the Protos Energy Recovery Facility.
Preference for Options 3 and 4	One respondent supports options 3 and 4 as best for retaining rural feel; suggests relocating employment areas to existing industrial site.
Historic environment / heritage assessment	One respondent requests that any option include a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings.
Preference for specific options (A or C)	Some respondents choose Option A or Option C.
Green Belt concerns / limited support for infill	One respondent opposes Green Belt development but may support small infill areas where boundaries are considered tenuous.
Support for ELT01 and/or ELT02	One respondent states areas EL01 and EL02 are suitable, resisting development to the south; notes existing industrial context near estuary.
Support for all mapped areas	One respondent supports all mapped areas.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent states that active travel should be at the forefront of planning work.
Green Belt protection at station	One respondent states Elton station is in Green Belt and should not be built up.
COMAH constraints / ESSAR objection to ELT02	One respondent objects strongly to ELT02 for residential due to COMAH inner/middle zones and HSE methodology; notes majority of land is owned by Essar and should be in Stanlow Special Protection Area.
Support for area ELT01	Peel supports identification of ELT01 and its role in economic growth.

Question SS 75

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Elton station?

12 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for Option B over Option C	One respondent submits that Option B is seen as more sustainable due to focus on main urban settlements with strong transport and services; concerns that Option C areas lack adequate public transport and services.
Site promotion / support for allocation	Support for promoting a site in Elton as a logical village extension despite being in Green Belt.
Maintain separation of settlements	Concern that Ince and Elton should remain separate communities; calls for improved station service and bus routes.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	One respondent requests a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings for any option.
Green Belt value questioned due to industrial context	One respondent states Green Belt in this area is meaningless due to proximity of the oil refinery.
Expand into Green Belt along transport corridors	One respondent supports further expansion into Green Belt where aligned with transport corridors.
Reconsider Green Belt boundary	One respondent questions the purpose and logic of current Green Belt boundary given Ince Marshes are excluded.
Green Belt protection	One respondent states that Green Belt should not be built on.
Detailed objection to Option C and site impacts (Encirc)	One respondent highlights poor public transport in Elton; warns development must not compromise Encirc operations; raises compatibility issues with area ELT03 near Ash Road and HGV routes.

Question SS 76

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Elton station when developing the new Local Plan?

10 comments

Theme	Summary
National Grid / National Grid Electricity Transmission asset constraints	One respondent identifies that area ELT04 is crossed or near 400kV overhead lines; requests policy wording requiring design response to National Grid Electricity Transmission guidelines and early engagement with utilities.
Rail service inadequacy at Ince & Elton	One respondent notes the station has only two parliamentary trains each way daily and is not a genuine transport option; challenges its use as justification for growth.
Minerals safeguarding	One respondent states that it is unclear if minerals safeguarding has been considered; requests detailed MRAs as MSAs not shown on constraints maps.
Noise / motorway constraint	One respondent submits that area ELT04 likely severely impacted by motorway noise and may not be suitable.
Green Belt / Best and Most Versatile agricultural land	One respondent states that any grade 2 or 3 farmland should undergo detailed surveys to assess Best and Most Versatile agricultural land status before decisions are made.
Infrastructure and S106 requirements	The Parish council highlights need for infrastructure to accompany growth, adequate S106 funds, and desire to be active participants in plan-making.
COMAH / Stanlow industrial constraints	Stanlow is an Upper Tier COMAH site; plan must ensure development does not conflict with operations and must reference critical national infrastructure status.

Potential growth areas (Hooton station)

Question SS 77

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Hooton station do you consider to be the most suitable?

18 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for specific growth areas (HOO02, HOO03, Option C, Option A)	Respondents identify preferred areas: HOO02 most suitable; HOO03 most acceptable; selection of Option C or Option A.
Support for all mapped growth areas	Some respondents state all options are suitable and should be developed, with suggestions for coordinated delivery and potential expansion.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	One respondent request a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent suggests that active travel should be prioritised in planning decisions and site design.
General support based on transport and brownfield land	One respondent supports development due to rail connectivity, proximity to M53, and presence of previously developed land.
Detailed site analysis and concerns about suitability of specific HOO sites	One respondent comments on the quality of existing developments, relocation of businesses, architectural concerns, and rationale for mixed use vs housing.
Alternative site promotion (Land off Chester Road)	One respondent proposes additional land as a strategic, large-scale mixed-use extension capable of delivering 2,500+ homes and well integrated with rail connectivity.
Objections based on Green Belt and landscape impact	Opposition to development at Hooton due to Green Belt designation, risk of settlement extension, and protecting openness between Wirral and Cheshire West.
Specific detailed objection to HOO03	One respondent considers that area H003 is unsuitable due to landfill presence and concerns about extending Hooton toward Willaston.
Promotion of H003 for mixed-use including crematoria	One respondent supports area H003 as a mixed-use site and notes availability of land for community facilities including crematoria.

Question SS 78

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Hooton station?

22 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for Option B over Option C	One respondent considers Option B to be more sustainable due to focus on existing main urban settlements with strong public transport and services; Option C viewed as less sustainable.
Heritage / historic environment assessment required	One respondent requests a robust assessment of heritage assets and their settings to guide site selection and development.
Objections: congestion, lack of infrastructure, flood risk, unsustainable growth	Concerns over severe congestion on Birkenhead Road/Neston Road/Willaston, school access issues, lack of healthcare and green areas, climate-related flooding, increased accident risk, business impacts, and lack of amenities in Hooton.
Support for limited development near Hooton Station	One respondent recognises Hooton as a sustainable station with regular trains; supports potential development close to the station.
Request to expand mapped areas	One respondent suggests mapped areas should be expanded.
Site promotion – Land off Chester Road	One respondent argues that Land off Chester Road should be included as a missed opportunity for a comprehensive mixed-use neighbourhood aligned with sustainable transport and local policy objectives.
Transport, parking, and safety concerns (Willaston, Benty Heath Lane, football congestion)	One respondent highlights dangerous junctions, increased congestion from previous developments, school-time gridlock, risky parking, and inadequate facilities in Hooton/Hooton Station.
Unsustainable for growth beyond Local Service Centre scale	Several respondents state that despite having a rail station, Hooton lacks all other essential services and facilities, making it unsuitable for substantial development.
Green Belt protection / prevent settlement merging	One respondent opposes development that would build on Green Belt land or result in merging of Willaston and Hooton.
Maintain separation of settlements	One respondent states that any policy should maintain distinctiveness and separation between Parkgate/Neston and Wirral settlements.

Question SS 79

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Hooton station when developing the new Local Plan?

10 comments

Theme	Summary
Minerals safeguarding requirements	One respondent requests clarity on minerals safeguarding and asks for detailed Minerals Resource Assessments, noting MSAs were not shown on constraint plans.
Transport accessibility (rail and road)	One respondent notes availability of train and road access in the area.
Environmental concerns: loss of hedgerows/trees, flooding, biodiversity	Concerns raised that loss of green fields and vegetation reduces flood control, increases drainage/energy demand, and harms wildlife and biodiversity.
Active travel improvements	One respondent recommends improved walking and cycling links between Hooton and Eastham using underpasses and rights of way upgrades.
Site suitability—Chester Road area largely unconstrained	One respondent states the Chester Road site is largely free from significant constraints; flood zones can be mitigated via SuDS; station accessibility supports sustainable development.
Support for crematoria provision	One respondent requests policy flexibility to allow crematoria development where need is demonstrated.
Green Belt and floodplain constraints	One respondent highlights Green Belt designation and proximity to the floodplain as key constraints.
Highways capacity concerns (M53 corridor)	One respondent notes any future development must consider capacity impacts on the M53 and its junctions.

Potential growth areas (Lostock Gralam)

Question SS 80

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Lostock Gralam do you consider to be the most suitable?

17 comments

Theme	Summary
Promote potential growth area LOS01 (north of Manchester Road) – rounding off and defensible boundaries	One respondent promotes potential growth area north of Manchester Road (LOS01) as most suitable; rounds off the settlement, has clear defensible boundaries, and complements recent employment to the south. Accepts Green Belt release with containment; notes southern options face constraints from adjacent employment/chemical works.
Alternative northern extension (Barlow Trust land) within 800m; pedestrian links; “grey belt” case; oppose southern growth	One respondent advocates a northern extension bounded by Wincham Brook and A559, prioritising land with better pedestrian links to the station; asserts land does not contribute to key Green Belt purposes (grey belt) and opposes southern growth due to risk of coalescence with Northwich/Rudheath and existing land uses south of the rail line.
Support all mapped options / include within Option 2	Two respondents support including all options, noting Lostock is part of Northwich; endorsement of all mapped areas.
Preference for specific options (LOS02 / LOS03 / Option A)	States preferences for potential growth area LOS02 and LOS03 (do not require Green Belt release) and for Option A of the choices presented.
Site promotion within 800m of station (deliverable)	One respondent promotes land well within easy walking distance (800m) of Lostock Gralam station; claims immediate availability, suitability, and deliverability with no known constraints; submitted under Call for Sites.
Historic environment / heritage assessment required	One respondent requests that any option be accompanied by a robust assessment of the historic environment, heritage assets, and their settings.
Support citing brownfield land and local facilities	One respondent supports growth citing presence of brownfield land and local facilities (pub, museum, football ground); suggests it could be a top option for Northwich.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent urges that active travel should be at the forefront of thinking and site selection.
Affordability and anti-buy-to-let conditions	One respondent supports housing near the station only if homes are affordable for key workers and cannot be purchased for rental/buy-to-let.
Infrastructure capacity must be ensured	One respondent states any growth must be supported by sufficient infrastructure capacity and provision.

Question SS 81

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Lostock Gralam?

24 comments

Theme	Summary
Ecology & protected species (Barn owls) / agricultural land	Concern about developing agricultural land due to recorded barn owl activity; Cheshire Barn Owl Group active with boxes and monitoring in the area (recent sighting on Linnards Lane).
Strategic industrial infrastructure constraints (Inovyn Holford Brinefields)	One respondent requests removal of potential growth areas LOS02 and LOS03: tenanted farmland overlays significant buried brinefield infrastructure of national strategic importance; relocation would cost multiple millions and is not feasible; supports UK chlorine manufacturing and water industry.
Spatial strategy preference – Option B over Option C	One respondent argues Option B (focus on main urban settlements with established public transport, services, and facilities) is more sustainable than Option C.
Ancient woodland constraint	One respondent states the proposed site for new housing is ancient woodland (identified during HS2), which should not be developed unless absolutely necessary; notes other Wincham plan sites are not ancient woodland.
Historic environment / heritage assessment requirement	One respondent requests that any option should be accompanied by a robust assessment of the historic environment, heritage assets, and their settings to inform the best solution.
Preference for Option A	One respondent submits a preference to choose Option A.
Site promotion within 800m of station (deliverable)	One respondent promotes land well within 800m/easy walk of Lostock Gralam station as available, suitable, and deliverable in the short term with no known constraints (submitted under Call for Sites).
Walking catchment methodology (use 1610m) and adjacent site promotion (ID0743 – Linnards Lane)	One respondent challenges 800m radius as arbitrary; cites National Travel Survey recommending the 85th percentile distances (≈1610m to rail stations, 800m to bus stops) and notes a proportion will walk further. Promotes ID0743 (Linnards Lane) for ~up to 40 homes with policy-compliant affordable housing; limited Green Belt harm; protects established trees on the northern boundary.
Unsustainable for large-scale growth; limited merit in LOS2 and LOS3 with access issues	One respondent asserts Lostock Gralam is largely unsustainable for anything exceeding suggested Local Service Centre growth; acknowledges rail, school, and pub but not justification for substantial development. Notes some merit in LOS2 and LOS3 but access challenges persist.
Green Belt protection	One respondent states that Green Belt should not be built on.
Northern growth area of LOS01 (Barlow Trust land) – grey belt case; defendable boundaries; oppose southern growth	One respondent supports growth to the north bounded by Wincham Brook and A559 with safe, established pedestrian links to the station; suggests land does not contribute to GB purposes (grey belt) and can be developed independently (avoid ransom). Opposes growth south of the rail line (risk of coalescence with Northwich/Rudheath; existing land uses preclude). Rail line is a logical defendable boundary.

Question SS 82

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Lostock Gralam when developing the new Local Plan?

7 comments

Theme	Summary
Minerals safeguarding clarity required	One respondent requests confirmation of whether minerals safeguarding has been considered; asks for detailed MRAs for proposed sites as MSAs were not shown on constraint plans.
Highways and road safety concerns	One respondent highlights major concerns about highways and road safety in Lostock Gralam, requiring improvement.
Support for improved sustainable transport connections	One respondent supports enhancements to pedestrian and cycle access to Lostock Gralam Station; willing to contribute to supporting infrastructure through future applications.
Green Belt and Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land	One respondent requests that all Grade 2 or 3 farmland be subject to detailed agricultural land surveys in accordance with Natural England guidance.
Northern growth (variation of LOS01) preferred	One respondent supports development north of Lostock Gralam with strong pedestrian connections to the station; argues land performs poorly against Green Belt purposes; opposes southern options (LOS02 & LOS03) due to risk of coalescence and poor fit with settlement pattern.

Potential growth areas (Mouldsworth station)

Question SS 83

Which of the identified potential growth areas around Mouldsworth station do you consider to be the most suitable?

18 comments

Theme	Summary
Retain Green Belt / Option A	Strong preference for Option A (no Green Belt release; no growth around the station).
Objection to Option C scale/density and transport suitability	Objection to 133 homes in MOU01–03; concerns about doubling village size and poor rail service.
Site promotion / inclusion	Two requests to include/promote sites; willing to engage with further info; one adjacent to MOU01.
Support for mapped areas / specific site	Support from two respondents for all mapped sites and specific preference for MOU02.
Historic environment / heritage assessment	One respondent calls for robust assessment of heritage assets to inform site choices.
Rural character / lack of infrastructure	Two responses argue that the area is too rural with insufficient infrastructure; none suitable.
Active travel emphasis	One respondent suggests that active travel should be prioritised in development considerations.
Affordability concerns	One respondent expressed concerns that new homes will be high-value only; questions housing for key workers.

Question SS 84

Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Mouldsworth station?

22 comments

Theme	Summary
Preference for Option B over Option C	One respondent considered Option B to be more sustainable due to focus on main urban settlements with better public transport and facilities.
Objection to Option C scale/density and transport suitability	Concerns about slow/poor rail service, unsustainable commuting, overdevelopment (e.g., 133 homes doubling village size).
Lack of local services / reliance on private vehicles	Several comments that Mouldsworth lacks key services (school, shop, employment, pavements, lighting), meaning residents would depend on cars.
Heritage and historic environment assessment	One respondent calls for robust assessment of historic environment and heritage settings.
Green Belt protection	One respondent expressed opposition to any Green Belt development.
Need for supporting infrastructure	One respondent expressed concerns about whether schools, open space, and amenities can accommodate growth.
Site promotion – Birch Farm	One respondent submitted a proposal to include Birch Farm as complementary to MOU01 under Option C.
Strong objection due to character and settlement pattern	One respondent states that large-scale growth incompatible with rural character, loose settlement pattern, and conservation areas.

Question SS 85

Are there any constraints, including infrastructure provision, that should be considered for Mouldsworth station when developing the new Local Plan?

5 comments

Theme	Summary
Minerals safeguarding as constraint	One respondent requests clarity on minerals safeguarding and asks for detailed MRAs for sites within MSAs; notes MSAs not shown on constraint plans.
No comment / No issues raised	Two responses submit no comments or no issues identified.
Infrastructure minimal / sustainable access in Mouldsworth	One respondent states that Mouldsworth has strong connectivity via rail and roads; minimal constraints; development should maintain rural character.
Green Belt & Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Land	One respondent highlights Green Belt constraints and need for detailed agricultural land surveys (Grade 2/3) following Natural England guidance.

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.