Comment

Representation ID: 17004

Received: 30/04/2026

Respondent: Mr Ray Phillips

We moved to Littleton as we wanted a rural village location and extremely pleased to be next to the lovely village of christleton. These plans will extend both areas into the city and lose everything we came here for! I can’t stress enough how much this will ruin our community and rural settings! Please register my objections for the proposed plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17005

Received: 01/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Ed Deane

We need the village plan to maintain the integrity and ecology of a very special village. The aims of this plan match with the views of the village and the wider community.

Comment

Representation ID: 17006

Received: 01/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Lawrence Hirst

Myself and my partner live down by the high school and the traffic is already carnage majority of the day due to the size of the village. Cannot leave the house during school hours, as it is grid locked which is a nightmare for dr’s appointments etc. If these houses are to be built it is unimaginable what is going to happen to the village

Comment

Representation ID: 17007

Received: 03/05/2026

Respondent: Ms Holly Duhig

I'm very happy with the objectives laid out in the neighbourhood plan. My main concern is preserving the character of the area and making sure that new houses are sympathetic to local character, use local brick styles, brick and stone window surrounds and altogether have architectural detail that adds local character. It would be a shame to see mass produced identical new builds that feel separate to the local community. Thank you to everyone who's worked to put this plan together.

Comment

Representation ID: 17008

Received: 03/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Andrew Foxhall

This plan guides sustainable development while protecting the villages’ rural character. It addresses concerns about overdevelopment, traffic, air quality and loss of green space by limiting housing to local needs, prioritising small‑scale, well‑designed schemes and applying a comprehensive Design Code. It safeguards Green Belt land, green gaps, wildlife corridors, heritage assets and the Shropshire Union Canal, while promoting biodiversity net gain, climate resilience, active travel and community facilities. Adoption is essential to prevent inappropriate Green Belt development that would undermine the area’s character and appeal.

Comment

Representation ID: 17009

Received: 03/05/2026

Respondent: Paul Sinclair

Fully supportive of this plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17010

Received: 04/05/2026

Respondent: Miss Nathalie Gresty

As a resident of the Whitchurch Road, I am strongly opposed to the recent proposed developments. Given the existing level of traffic on the A41, any development would make it nigh on impossible for residents to get on or off their driveways during the rush hour. School children already ride their bikes on the pavement without due care and attention, which is an accident waiting to happen. With increased traffic it would only be a matter of time before a serious accident occurs. Also, where are the children living in these proposed developments supposed to go to school?

Comment

Representation ID: 17011

Received: 04/05/2026

Respondent: Ms Diane Stafford

We wish to express our support for the Christleton parish council neighbourhood plan, which comprehensively outlines the preferences of many local residents. There are particular issues surrounding traffic congestion and dangers on the A41, air quality, use of green belt land and inappropriate housing applications in the area. The neighbourhood plan aims to retain the village feel we enjoy, whilst protecting wild life and rural heritage of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 17013

Received: 01/05/2026

Respondent: Sport England

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above neighbourhood plan.

Government planning policy, within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), identifies how the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking, cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process. Providing enough sports facilities of the right quality and type in the right places is vital to achieving this aim. This means that positive planning for sport, protection from the unnecessary loss of sports facilities, along with an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land with community facilities is important.

Therefore, it is essential that the neighbourhood plan reflects and complies with national planning policy for sport as set out in the NPPF with particular reference to Pars 103 and 104. It is also important to be aware of Sport England’s statutory consultee role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing field land. Sport England’s playing fields policy is set out in our Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document.
https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#playing_fields_policy

Sport England provides guidance on developing planning policy for sport and further information can be found via the link below. Vital to the development and implementation of planning policy is the evidence base on which it is founded.
https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#planning_applications

Sport England works with local authorities to ensure their Local Plan is underpinned by robust and up to date evidence. In line with Par 104 of the NPPF, this takes the form of assessments of need and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. A neighbourhood planning body should look to see if the relevant local authority has prepared a playing pitch strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports facility strategy. If it has then this could provide useful evidence for the neighbourhood plan and save the neighbourhood planning body time and resources gathering their own evidence. It is important that a neighbourhood plan reflects the recommendations and actions set out in any such strategies, including those which may specifically relate to the neighbourhood area, and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support their delivery.

Where such evidence does not already exist then relevant planning policies in a neighbourhood plan should be based on a proportionate assessment of the need for sporting provision in its area. Developed in consultation with the local sporting and wider community any assessment should be used to provide key recommendations and deliverable actions. These should set out what provision is required to ensure the current and future needs of the community for sport can be met and, in turn, be able to support the development and implementation of planning policies. Sport England’s guidance on assessing needs may help with such work.
http://www.sportengland.org/planningtoolsandguidance

If new or improved sports facilities are proposed Sport England recommend you ensure they are fit for purpose and designed in accordance with our design guidance notes.
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/

Any new housing developments will generate additional demand for sport. If existing sports facilities do not have the capacity to absorb the additional demand, then planning policies should look to ensure that new sports facilities, or improvements to existing sports facilities, are secured and delivered. Proposed actions to meet the demand should accord with any approved local plan or neighbourhood plan policy for social infrastructure, along with priorities resulting from any assessment of need, or set out in any playing pitch or other indoor and/or outdoor sports facility strategy that the local authority has in place.

In line with the Government’s NPPF (including Section 8) and its Planning Practice Guidance (Health and wellbeing section), links below, consideration should also be given to how any new development, especially for new housing, will provide opportunities for people to lead healthy lifestyles and create healthy communities. Sport England’s Active Design guidance can be used to help with this when developing planning policies and developing or assessing individual proposals.

Active Design, which includes a model planning policy, provides ten principles to help ensure the design and layout of development encourages and promotes participation in sport and physical activity. The guidance, and its accompanying checklist, could also be used at the evidence gathering stage of developing a neighbourhood plan to help undertake an assessment of how the design and layout of the area currently enables people to lead active lifestyles and what could be improved.

NPPF Section 8: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/8-promoting-healthy-communities

PPG Health and wellbeing section: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/health-and-wellbeing

Sport England’s Active Design Guidance: https://www.sportengland.org/activedesign

(Please note: this response relates to Sport England’s planning function only. It is not associated with our funding role or any grant application/award that may relate to the site.)

If you need any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact Sport England using the contact details below.

Comment

Representation ID: 17014

Received: 01/05/2026

Respondent: Ms Katherine Seddon

I support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16) I believe it accurately reflects the people in both villages who want to:
1. Keep the villages and communities distinct and separated from Chester.
2. Keep the rural feel of both Littleton and Christleton with green spaces and rural footpaths.
3. Apply and secure a Cheshire housing design code to enable a harmonious feel to the villages and avoid identikit new housing.
4. To ensure wildlife corridors and biodiversity are secured.
5. Only permit small density housing developments to ensure the core villages and their identities are not overwhelmed by large scale inappropriate housing with knock on effects on schooling and services such as water and waste, and increased traffic already busy road infrastructure of A41 and A51.

Comment

Representation ID: 17015

Received: 02/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Gordon Cook

I approve the changes made by Christleton parish Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 17016

Received: 03/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Thomas David Morgan-Wynne

I am writing in support of the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan (v31), and in particular to express my strong backing for the policies that protect the green spaces, green gaps, and open countryside that make these villages so special.

As a resident of the CH3 5QD area, I live within and regularly enjoy the fields, lanes, and canal towpaths that weave through Christleton and Littleton. These green spaces are not simply pleasant backdrops to daily life — they are the very heart of what makes this community so special and worth protecting for generations to come.

I fully support the designation of the five Green Gaps (GG1–GG5), which prevent the coalescence of Christleton and Littleton with surrounding settlements including Great Boughton, Vicars Cross, Guilden Sutton, Waverton, and Rowton. Once these gaps are lost to development, they cannot be recovered. The plan rightly recognises that these green buffers preserve the rural character, protect public rights of way, and provide essential access to open countryside for residents and visitors alike.

I also strongly endorse the eleven Local Green Spaces (LGS1–LGS11) designated throughout the plan area. Spaces such as King George V recreation area, Birch Heath Common, Legion Meadow, and The Pit are irreplaceable community assets that support wildlife, wellbeing, and outdoor recreation. These spaces must be protected from development in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The Conservation Corridors — including the Shropshire Union Canal, Old Woman's Lane, Fir Tree Lane, and Hockenhull Platts Nature Reserve — are vital wildlife habitats and walking routes that connect the natural landscape across the parishes. As someone who uses these routes regularly as part of daily life, I can attest to how deeply valued they are by the local community. Development within or adjacent to these corridors must be resisted firmly.

The plan's own evidence makes clear that the road network in and around Christleton is already operating beyond safe capacity, with air quality levels on the A41 and A51 significantly exceeding World Health Organisation safe limits for both NO2 and PM2.5. As a resident, these are not abstract statistics — they represent a real and daily concern for the health of those who live here, particularly the children and elderly members of our community.

Welsh Water's own assessment has confirmed that the Chester Wastewater Treatment Works lacks the capacity to accommodate significant new housing. When combined with the well-documented flooding issues at Plough Lane, Village Road, and the school entrances, it is clear that the infrastructure simply cannot support further large-scale development in these villages.

I urge the Borough Council to give full weight to the policies in this plan, particularly those protecting the green gaps, local green spaces, conservation corridors, and incidental open spaces. These are not obstacles to progress — they are the foundation of a sustainable, healthy, and deeply cherished community that I am proud to call home.

Thank you for the enormous effort that has clearly gone into producing this plan. I hope it is adopted in full and given the legal weight it deserves.

Comment

Representation ID: 17017

Received: 04/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Howard Gibbs

I am a resident of Christleton and I am writing to express strong support for the Neighbourhood Plan, but also to make clear that without meaningful strengthening of policies on traffic and parking, the Plan will fail to address the most serious and immediate issues facing the village.

The current situation is already unacceptable:

* Christleton and Littleton are being used daily as rat-runs to bypass congestion on the A41 and A51;
* traffic volumes at peak times are excessive and coincide directly with school arrival and departure, creating clear and avoidable risks to children and pedestrians;
* air quality impacts and congestion are already significant;
* on-street parking is at or beyond capacity in many locations, reducing visibility, blocking access and undermining highway safety.

These are not marginal concerns—they are core constraints on the capacity of the village to accommodate further development safely and sustainably.

It is therefore essential that the Neighbourhood Plan does not simply seek to avoid worsening these problems, but actively requires development to address them.

Required Strengthening of Policy – Traffic and Rat-Run Reduction

The Plan must clearly recognise that the existing road network is already under severe strain and that unmanaged through-traffic is a primary cause.

I propose the following policy wording is adopted:

Traffic Management, Rat-Run Reduction and Highway Safety

Development proposals must demonstrate that they will not result in a material increase in through-traffic (“rat-running”) within Christleton and Littleton, particularly along routes used as alternatives to the A41 and A51.

Proposals must explicitly address the “existing and ongoing problem of rat-run traffic” and must not exacerbate these conditions.

Where development is likely to generate additional vehicle movements, proposals must:

* prioritise pedestrian and cyclist safety, particularly on school routes;
* incorporate design measures that actively prevent through-traffic, including filtered permeability, traffic calming and layouts that eliminate shortcutting;
* demonstrate, through a robust Transport Statement or Assessment, how both existing and development-related traffic impacts will be mitigated;
* contribute, where appropriate, to off-site measures that reduce existing rat-running.

Development that would worsen existing traffic conditions or increase risk to pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren, “must not be supported” unless effective and enforceable mitigation is secured.

Required Strengthening of Policy – Parking and Highway Function

Parking pressure in the village is already critical and cannot be ignored.

The long-standing reluctance to introduce conventional controls such as yellow lines in conservation areas has contributed to:

* unsafe road conditions;
* obstruction of emergency and service vehicles;
* increased congestion and reduced visibility.

The Plan must address this reality directly.

I propose the following policy wording:

Parking Management and Highway Function

Development proposals must provide sufficient on-site parking and must not result in any increase in overspill parking onto existing village streets.

Proposals must demonstrate that they will not:

* worsen existing parking congestion;
* obstruct access or reduce highway safety;
* compromise the effective functioning of the road network.

The Plan must explicitly recognise that “existing parking pressures are already excessive” and require that development:

* avoids adding to these pressures;
* contributes, where appropriate, to measures that address existing parking constraints.

Within conservation areas, heritage considerations must not override safety. The Plan should support “practical, proportionate and discreet parking controls” where necessary to ensure safe operation of the highway network, through the centre of the village.

Development that worsens existing parking conditions “must not be supported.”

Scale of Development Must Reflect Real Capacity

The village cannot absorb further development without regard to its existing constraints.

I propose the following policy wording:

Scale of Development and Local Capacity

Development within Christleton and Littleton must be small-scale and proportionate to the clearly limited capacity of the settlements.

Proposals must demonstrate that they:

* do not add to existing congestion, rat-running or parking stress;
* can be accommodated safely within the existing highway network;
* do not undermine the environmental quality or character of the villages.

Any proposal that fails to meet these tests “should be refused.”

---

Conclusion

Christleton and Littleton are already experiencing the consequences of traffic congestion and uncontrolled parking. These are not theoretical future impacts—they are daily realities affecting safety, health and quality of life.

If the Neighbourhood Plan is to be meaningful, it must:

* recognise these existing constraints;
* require development to address them;
* and ensure that growth is genuinely sustainable in practice, not just in principle.

I support the Plan, but only on the basis that these issues are clearly and robustly addressed through strengthened policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 17018

Received: 04/05/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ian and Karen Hodgkinson

We have looked at the regulation 16 version of the neighbourhood plan and strongly support the principles of no urban sprawl , green spaces designed to retain the rural feel of Christleton and Waverton and the mandatory design code and controlled growth

Comment

Representation ID: 17019

Received: 04/05/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Andrew & Sarah Wyrko

Please find following our comments in string support of the proposed neighbourhood plan.

It is pleasing to see the development of a comprehensive plan to both preserve and allow future evolution of the two historic villages (Christleton and Littleton) that are the focus of these plans.

Treading the balance between preserving the key nature of these villages, whilst accepting need for change, is a difficult task. Especially when taking into account the desirable nature of these two villages - both as places to live or to visit.

Unfortunately, this desirable nature can often be something that people may look to take advantage of through development - leveraging the post code and location in an effort to achieve a high return on their investments. Indeed - in locations such as these, 'affordable' housing per local pricing may not be affordable for the majority looking for this type of property. It is therefore important that guidelines, grounded in data, are in place to ensure decisions are taken based on a balanced view of both local and societal needs - and this plan appears to provide this.

Specifically, as it relates to ourselves as residents of Christleton:
- Proposed green gaps ensure that the villages will remain separate from the surrounding area; maintaining their own unique nature
- The plan acknowledges there are some specific needs within the area; and with guidelines indicates the type and opportunies for development - without compromising the village feel
- Specific note of new needs such as solar provision, battery charging, air source heat pumps is good to see - along with guidance of how these can be implemented sympathetically to the village. However, it should be ensured that these do not become barriers to implementation of environmentally beneficial initiatives.
- Having a good framework for how new housing should develop within the village envelope will ensure no incongruent developments. But part of the charm of the village is that there has been development over many centuries - contributing to the unique feel of the area. Therefore these guidelines should be implemented judiciously, based on the specific village location and surrounding developments. This will ensure that the character continues to evolve through their future.
- Green space, canal, and non-car based travel provision and consideration are key for all future health and fitness. The combined impact, also taking into account air quality, congestion and risk during travel to schools and so on, is a key part of this plan which is gratifying to see - and hopefully will continue to expand in to other neighbour hood plans; should.they be developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 17020

Received: 05/05/2026

Respondent: Gillian Cannon

I fully support this plan to protect our villages. We need green space to protect peoples’ health & wellbeing, retain wildlife, trees, plants, etc.
Traffic is already heavy on the A51 & A41 with regular road traffic accidents. Cyclists & pedestrians are at risk every day.
Christleton village becomes gridlocked twice a day with traffic to both schools with drivers not thinking twice about mounting the pavements putting pedestrians in danger. This is then compounded if there is an incident on one of the A roads with drivers taking a shortcut through the village. More houses in the area means more traffic.
New housing should not be erected where wastewater treatment isn’t adequate.

Comment

Representation ID: 17021

Received: 05/05/2026

Respondent: V R Hammonds

I wish to lodge an objection to any proposals for building developments in the areas of Waverton, Christleton and Littleton. The infrastructures surrounding these villages are far from adequate to support more development.
The country lanes are already overcrowded with speeding’ rat run’ traffic between the A51 and A41 major roads, and those A roads themselves are bursting with queues at peak times already. The lanes were never intended for the burden of traffic they carry now and they are certainly not fit or safe for further build up created by new houses.
No development is in my opinion justified as schools and medical services are currently overstretched by the community as it stands.
Taking my comments into account, the Neighbourhood Plan ( Reg 16) which has been submitted on behalf of Christleton and Littleton ( and surrounding villages) should be taken into consideration by any Independent Examiner to ensure the appropriate heritage nature of any development is respectful and environmentally sympathetic to existing villages.
This should not be waived through as politically expedient as has seemingly happened. The planning approval in Chester and surrounds over recent years is woeful in how inordinately ugly the buildings are.

Comment

Representation ID: 17022

Received: 05/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Iwan Thomas

I would briefly like to voice my support for any plan that builds more desperately needed housing, in and around the area. I oppose any measures that would restrict the development of new homes.

The whole country, including Chester is gripped by a housing crisis. Homes are too expensive and there are simply not enough. To reduce the costs and to meet demand we must increase supply. This means building houses here and everywhere.

I am a young professional working full time in Chester. I want to buy a home to live and work here, yet the price of housing makes this almost impossible. I pay £950 in rent every month just to live on the outskirts of the city, currently the only houses I can afford will take me far away from Chester.

We should be making it easier to build new homes, not making it impossible with endless rules and regulations.

I hope the Council will make a decision based on the interests of all residents and not just those with the time and resources to lobby against development.

Comment

Representation ID: 17023

Received: 06/05/2026

Respondent: National Highways

Thank you for inviting National Highways to provide comments regarding the above proposals.

Policy Overview
National Highways has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity. It is an ambition to ensure that major roads are more dependable, durable, and most importantly – safe.

National Highways’ approach to engaging with the planning system is governed by the advice and guidance set out in:
• The Strategic Road Network Planning for the Future - A Guide to Working with National Highways on Planning Matters (October 2023).
• The document is written in the context of statutory responsibilities as set out in National Highways’ licence, and in the light of government policy and regulation, including the:
• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);
• Town and Country Planning Development Management (Procedure) Order (England) 2015 (DMPO)
• DfT Circular 01/2022 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development (‘The Circular’).

National Highways comments
National Highways has reviewed the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Development Plan and its associated documents. As a general observation, it would be appropriate for proposed policies to be reviewed against relevant national policy, including the National Planning Policy Framework and Department for Transport guidance. It is noted that some proposed policies appear to be inconsistent with national guidance; however, where these relate to locally maintained roads, this is a matter for the local highway authority to consider and comment on further.

Notwithstanding this, National Highways makes the following specific comment on the policy set out below:

Policy HT1 (Signage to direct traffic via M56/M6 rather than down the A41 and A51) is not supported by national planning or transport policy and conflicts with established DfT principles on the role of traffic signing and the NPPF’s requirements for evidence-based transport planning.

The National Planning Policy Framework is explicit that transport impacts must be addressed through assessment and mitigation, not avoided through aspirational rerouting assumptions. Paragraph 111 states:
“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe.”

Policy HT1 does not propose mitigation of impacts on the A41 or A51; instead, it assumes that traffic can be redirected elsewhere by signage alone. This approach sidesteps the NPPF test by seeking to displace traffic impacts rather than assess or mitigate them, contrary to national policy.

The NPPF further requires transport planning to be vision-led but evidence-based, with realistic and deliverable measures. Paragraph 109 requires plans to:
“Understand and address the potential impacts of development on transport networks” and to “identify and pursue opportunities to promote sustainable transport solutions.”

Directional signage is not a transport solution in NPPF terms. It does not reduce trip generation, does not secure mode shift, and does not guarantee changes in driver behaviour. As such, HT1 relies on an unproven assumption, rather than addressing impacts through measurable, enforceable mitigation.

DfT guidance on traffic signing is clear about the limited purpose of signs. The Traffic Signs Manual (DfT Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 2) explains that the function of directional signing is:
“to guide road users along appropriate routes to their destinations.”

There is no support in DfT guidance for using signage as a mechanism to:
• manage development impacts,
• discourage use of certain roads for environmental reasons, or
• force traffic onto longer or faster routes.
Using signage in this way moves beyond guidance and into behavioural control, which DfT policy does not endorse.

It is also important to emphasise the intended role of the SRN. The SRN is designed to facilitate safe, reliable and efficient strategic and often long-distance journeys, particularly movements between major centres of population, ports, airports and key economic locations. DfT Circular 01/2022 explains that the principal purpose of the SRN is to support strategic movement and economic activity, rather than to address localised impacts arising from development proposals. Paragraphs 4–5 of the Circular set out that the SRN is critical infrastructure for long-distance travel and freight and plays a distinct role within the wider transport network.
Paragraph 28 of the Circular further makes clear that the SRN should not be relied upon to accommodate general development traffic where suitable alternatives exist, and that new or intensified access to the SRN must be carefully justified.
“The policies and allocations that result from plan-making must not compromise the SRN’s prime function to enable the long-distance movement of people and goods.

When the company assists local authorities in the development of their plans and strategies, the local authority should ensure that the SRN is not being relied upon for the transport accessibility of site allocations except where this relates to roadside facilities or SRN-dependent sectors (such as logistics and manufacturing).”

In particular, the Circular highlights that direct access to the SRN is generally appropriate only for road-reliant development, where there is a clear functional need or locational requirement for such access, and not as a default means of serving residential development. Development proposals are expected to demonstrate that reliance on the SRN is necessary and appropriate, and that impacts have been properly assessed and mitigated through evidence-based analysis rather than assumed outcomes.

Accordingly, the use of SRN junctions as the primary means of access for housing development, or as a mechanism to reduce impacts on the local road network, would not align with the principles set out in DfT Circular 01/2022. The Circular highlights that planning should focus on managing and mitigating impacts at the appropriate network level, and not on transferring local impacts onto the SRN in a manner inconsistent with its strategic function.

Although DfT Circular 01/2022 applies to the Strategic Road Network, it reinforces a broader principle that is relevant in this context: planning policy should address transport impacts through assessment and mitigation, rather than prescribing detailed traffic management or routing outcomes. Operational traffic measures are matters for the highway authority, informed by evidence and network operation considerations, not for pre-determination through land-use policy.

Finally, HT1 raises a fundamental deliverability and governance issue, which the NPPF requires plans to address. The Framework expects policies to be effective and capable of implementation. Directional signage:
• requires separate highway authority approval,
• must meet necessity tests under DfT regulations,
• cannot be guaranteed to influence driver choice.
As such, HT1 relies on outcomes that cannot be secured through the planning system, undermining its effectiveness. It is for this reason National Highways would not be in a position to support this specific policy.

Taken together, the proposed policies would benefit from a more rigorous review against national policy to ensure they are evidence-based, proportionate and deliverable. National planning policy is clear that transport impacts should be assessed and addressed through appropriate analysis and mitigation, and that assumptions about driver behaviour, traffic displacement or network performance should not be relied upon in place of proper assessment. Policies which presume outcomes, prescribe operational solutions, or seek to displace impacts rather than understand and manage them risk falling out of step with this approach.

There is also a need to consider the cumulative effect of multiple transport-related policies operating together. Individually, measures such as restricting development, directing traffic elsewhere, or assuming alternative routes may appear benign. However, when taken collectively, they risk embedding a set of assumptions that are not supported by evidence and which may transfer impacts to other parts of the network, increase vehicle mileage, or constrain sustainable growth in ways not intended by national policy.

A compliant neighbourhood plan, in accordance with the basic conditions, should therefore focus on setting a clear policy framework that enables impacts to be assessed transparently, mitigated where necessary, and determined in cooperation with the relevant highway authority, rather than seeking to predetermine outcomes - as per national policy. A review of the proposed policies with these principles in mind would help ensure consistency with national policy, improve robustness at examination, and reduce the risk of unintended or cumulative adverse consequences.

I trust the above observations will be helpful in informing further consideration of the proposed policies and strategic routing of traffic (including emergency division routes), with further conversation with National Highways welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 17024

Received: 07/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Barrie Gibson

It's so very important to keep our village as it is and to protect wildlife. Loss of habitat is inevitable but please keep to a minimum. Christleton must remain as distant as possible and independent of any new large development

Comment

Representation ID: 17025

Received: 06/05/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Jean Cresswell

We completely agree with the efforts to preserve our villages by limiting unnecessary building and safeguarding all green spaces. Please on our behalf continue to oppose housing developments which are unnecessary as there is so much room for development in the city itself. Empty stores such as the former B&H could be used for domestic living which would bring life into the city in the evenings.

Please protect nature and preserve for future generations what we now have!

Comment

Representation ID: 17026

Received: 06/05/2026

Respondent: Jenny Stewart

Please accept this email as support of the regulation 16 plan to:-

Protect our villages from urban sprawl
Retain green spaces
Have a mandatory character design
Avoiding anywhere architecture
Protect wildlife
To control growth to ensure the villages remain villages

Comment

Representation ID: 17027

Received: 07/05/2026

Respondent: Natural Resources Wales

We have reviewed the consultation documents and have no comment to make. We refer you to Natural England (NE) as the Appropriate Nature Conservation Body (ANCB) for England for their comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 17028

Received: 07/05/2026

Respondent: Julie Smith

I strongly support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan for a number of specific reasons.

1. Christleton is a Village and the residents wish it to remain a village. No urban sprawl. Maintain the green belt and green spaces.
2. By doing this it will protect the wildlife corridors and canal biodiversity.
3. NO LARGE housing developments. The road infrastructure A41 and A51 CANNOT support it. The pollution levels are way over recommended levels, affecting the health of all. The Boughton Heath junction, built to take the traffic from Saighton camp, has NEVER worked and is unable to cope with any more traffic caused by another large housing estate. The supporting infrastructure of schools, doctors, dentists etc is not in place.
4. A few small developments built in keeping with the village architecture would be achievable. House that people need, first time buyers, semi detached family homes. NOT huge 4/5 bedroom expensive houses built to make the developer money, not meet the needs of the community.
5. Having lived through the development at Saighton Camp, specifically the issues that STILL occur with waste water treatment, specifically pollution to Caldy Valley Brook and into the River Dee. NO housing developments should be approved without the water treatment being in place FIRST.

Comment

Representation ID: 17029

Received: 07/05/2026

Respondent: Angela Roberts

I support the christleton and Littleton neighbourhood plan (regulation 16)

Comment

Representation ID: 17030

Received: 07/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Carol Mannion

I feel very strongly about protecting Green Spaces, Protecting green spaces is essential for environmental sustainability, public health, and community wellbeing. By protecting green spaces, societies create healthier, more resilient environments for both current and future generations. Historical Christleton Village Green spaces are very important to our community and we need them protected especially the Historical walled Orchard at Christleton Law College.

Comment

Representation ID: 17031

Received: 07/05/2026

Respondent: Mr George Harwood

I totally support the Neighbourhood Plan submitted by Christleton and Littleton Parish Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 17032

Received: 08/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Andy Broadwood

I strongly support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan. I particularly support the policies protecting the Green Belt, Green Gaps, Local Green Spaces, Public Rights of Way, Wildlife and Biodiversity, Local Views, Highways, Air Quality and Flooding. The open fields around Littleton are vital to the village’s rural setting, wildlife, public amenity and separation from nearby settlements. They should not be lost to large housing schemes or piecemeal development. I support limited, genuinely local, small-scale housing only where it protects the openness of the Green Belt and is fully consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17034

Received: 09/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Matthew Wilcox

Protecting green spaces around the law college and better traffic management around the A41 and A51 is required.

Comment

Representation ID: 17035

Received: 10/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Harwood

I fully support the Neighbourhood Plan recently submitted by Christleton and Littleton Parish Council.