Comment

Representation ID: 17036

Received: 08/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Andy Leaman

As a resident of Waverton for 40 years and Footpaths Warden for a period of 10 years.
I now live in Christleton on The Law College site which we love.
Part of the incentive to move here was The Walled Garden and Playing Field.
We are in total agreement with Policy LGS1 ie recreation of the Orchard on its original sight and access to the Green Field being designated a playing field and no housing development approval to be granted.
Access must be granted to the Orchard and the Playing field must be provided to the residents of the new houses.
We are in support of all other aspects of this excellent Neighbourhood Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 17037

Received: 09/05/2026

Respondent: Lydia Putt

I fully support the Christleton and Littlehood Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16). It is a thorough and meticulously compiled plan with regard for the local housing needs and the heritage of the villages. It allows for needs to be met without insensitive and unsuitable development.

Comment

Representation ID: 17038

Received: 09/05/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Rob and Victoria Stewart

We fully support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan (Reg 16) and would like to see any future development proposals be assessed against the framework/criteria therein.

Comment

Representation ID: 17039

Received: 10/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Julia Leaman

Policy LGS1 law college playing fields.

I am writing to comment in support of NP v31 policy LGS1 and the entire Neighbourhood plan. In 2024 we bought our new house on the law college development site. A fundamental part of our decision to buy the house was influenced by the retention of the Orchard and the playing field below the houses. We were appalled when the Orchard trees were felled and the playing fields were fenced off. We support the request to reinstate the orchard, replace the trees on the original site and open up the playing field as a green space and NOT for future development of housing or similar.

Comment

Representation ID: 17040

Received: 11/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Smith

Having read the Neighbourhood Plan i am writing to confirm my strong agreement with the points raised.

Put simply the infrastructure for Littleton and Christleton - and indeed the surrounding areas - would not support additional development and house building. The evidence is seen on a daily basis so should not be ignored. I strongly support:

- development of brownfield sites
- green gaps to maintain separation of villages
- consideration of the environment
- infrastructure - don’t ignore the obvious requirements. Learn from the mistakes of Saighton Camp debacle - dreadful road design, inability to handle waste water which over a decade later is still causing issues.

In short listen and act reasonably. The complete disregard of residents comments in relation to Saighton Camp from local councillers (Mark Williams specifically) led to the issues we face on a daily basis today.

Comment

Representation ID: 17041

Received: 11/05/2026

Respondent: Julie Smith

I strongly support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood plan for the following reasons

Christleton is a Village and the residents wish it to remain a village. No urban sprawl, maintain the green belt and green spaces. By doing this it will protect the wildlife corridors and canal biodiversity.

NO LARGE housing developments. The road infrastructure A41 and A51 CANNOT support it. The pollution levels are way above recommend levels affecting the health of all.

The Boughton Heath junction, built to take traffic from Saighton Camp has NEVER worked and is unable to cope with any more traffic that any large housing estates would create.

The supporting infrastructure of
Schools, doctors dentists etc is
Not in place..

A few small Developments built in keeping with the village architecture would be achievable. Homes that are needed, not huge 4/5 bed expensive houses built to make the developers money, and not to meet housing needs.

Having lived through the development of Saighton Camp, specifically the issues that STILL occur with waste water treatment, specifically the pollution to Caldy Valley Brook and discharge of sewage into the River Dee. This happens on a regular basis. NOT the occasional time when there is a lot of rainfall.NO housing developments should be approved without the water treatment/sewage being in place FIRST.

Lastly please learn from the mistakes made at Saighton Camp which despite being brought to the attention of Planning were disregarded particularly by Councillor Mark Williams, and we are still living with on a daily basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 17042

Received: 11/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Clare Holland

We value the Shropshire Union Canal and towpath and its environmental, economic, health and well being benefits. We believe that the Grade II listed bridges should be protected more from inappropriate traffic (with the widespread use of Google maps and similar by commercial traffic these bridges are suffering and being damaged.) Rowton and Christleton bridges have weight limit signs on them which are repeatedly ignored in our experience. (Quarry Bridge is protected by being pedestrian only.) We support the neighbourhood plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17043

Received: 12/05/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Please find our response attached for this Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17044

Received: 12/05/2026

Respondent: Carly Broadwood

I strongly support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan, especially the policies protecting Green Belt, Green Gaps, Local Views, Public Rights of Way, Wildlife and Biodiversity, Highways, Air Quality and Flooding. The fields between Littleton and the A41/A51 are very important to me because they preserve the rural setting of Littleton and separation from nearby settlements. They should not be lost to large housing schemes, Green Belt release or piecemeal development. I support genuinely local, small-scale housing only where it protects openness and is fully consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17045

Received: 13/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Barry Nightingale

Fully support the plan, Julie Smith is our representative and we support her views

Comment

Representation ID: 17046

Received: 13/05/2026

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

Waverton Parish Council fully support the Christleton Neighbourhood Plan and wish the Examiner to note the following points.

• Christleton, Waverton and Rowton are separate, distinct, historic Villages to the South East of Chester, all with significant conservation and heritage assets.
• The NP sets out the policies regarding the Green Gaps that define, enhance, and protect these parishes.
• GG4 provides open access to open countryside for both Parishes and is a critical piece of green belt that separates Christleton from Waverton
• GG4 checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – proposed developments in GG4 are therefore not grey belt. An important PROW walking route, with distant views of the Village crosses this green gap.
• GG4 and GG5 are either side of the Shropshire Union Canal, which is a conservation area. To the south it borders on Rowton and continues through Waverton. There is open access to and views of open countryside, for walkers and cyclists.

Comment

Representation ID: 17047

Received: 13/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Donald

I support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood plan Reg 16 to: prevent urban sprawl and maintain separation of villages; maintain green spaces and prow; allow only controlled growth of small low density developments with appropriate architecture; to prevent ANY material increase in traffic volume and unacceptable congestion, nitrogen dioxide exposure for residents, and accident injury rates; no further imposition of housing without suitable new infrastructure including schools, medical facilities, waste water treatment; to retain separation from Chester and maintain the benefits of village life.

Comment

Representation ID: 17048

Received: 13/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Alastair Donald

I support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan Reg16 to maintain the green gaps between village and urban areas; preventing urban sprawl; allowing only small low density development in the style of local housing; protecting wildlife; preventing additional traffic on already congested road network, challenging road safety and pollution concerns; and ensuring new infrastructure supports the existing village community.

Comment

Representation ID: 17049

Received: 14/05/2026

Respondent: Marie Pollitt

Because of a very busy A41 with long queues frequently on the road, schools which are crowded , infrequent bus services and no post office or local doctors, this area cannot take any more large housing developments .

Comment

Representation ID: 17050

Received: 14/05/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs James and Sian Walker

We are getting in contact to say that we approve of the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan, which limits urban sprawl, retaining the rural feel of the two villages, controlling growth with low density developments that are in keeping with the traditional rural character of both villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 17051

Received: 14/05/2026

Respondent: Mr David Clarke

I am commenting on this Neighbouhood Plan as a resident of Christleton, current from 2024 and past from 1963 to 1970. Firstly, I welcome all of its observations and proposals to maintain the distinctive character of these communities.

The particular recommendation for which I wish to express support, referred to as Policy LGS1, is the proposed designation as a Local Green Space of the walled garden forming part of Christleton Hall and the area of tree lined open grassland overlooked from the West front of the Hall. There is a history of the latter being used as a playing field, I.e. for recreational purposes. Within the developer’s own original application for planning consent there are references to this:
17 Aug 2021 - Drawing - Site Map and images - p3 of 8 - “Open space, sport and recreation”;
p5 of 8 - Site Photograph D - “looking west across public open space and former playing pitches”;
17 Aug 2021 - Drawing - Archaeological Desktop Based Assessment - p10 plate 4 - “facing North East across playing field” 2016.

The walled garden was envisaged as a community space with the retention of its apple tree orchard when planning permission was granted to the developer. To attempt to renegue on this condition of planning consent is reprehensible and designation as Local Green Space could prevent it and preserve this heritage asset. In any case, protection of this and the open grassed area overlooked by Christleton Hall would be of great benefit to the community, to the ecology of the area and to the Christleton environment in general.

The University of Law development is an interesting example of how new building has the potential to enhance or detract from the character of a neighbourhood.

Christleton is an historic village with many individual buildings contributing to this. An important one of these is the Grade II listed Christleton Hall, built in Georgian times and most recently occupied by the University of Law. The development on this site from 2022 onwards was itself the factor which enabled the Georgian Hall to be restored to its original architecturally attractive state and situation. The new build development enabled the rambling collection of unattractive Victorian and later buildings to be demolished, leaving the original Hall standing in space, complete with its walled garden and open aspect across a large tree lined grass area.

I believe the new build development is a success in its own right. There is a strong community spirit among its residents, both within the development and in their contribution to the village as a whole through support for its businesses and amenities.

The development is architecturally tasteful and RESTRAINED IN ITS SCALE. Occupying only the former car park, it does not obscure or impinge on the historic Hall. For that much, the developer is to be congratulated. However, further building could only undo the good that has been achieved.

Experience of living in a place is, most importantly, about our emotional responses to it, about our connectivity to its history, to its natural and built environment and to its community vibe. Neighbouhood planning should aim to eliminate the negative and sustain and enhance the positive aspects of this through its management of inevitable change. I believe the vision of the Christleton and Littleton Plan does embody this aim.

Comment

Representation ID: 17052

Received: 15/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Ann Wareing

I wish to object most stongly to the proposed building on the land immediately after the Cheshire Cat. No consideration has been given to vehicles accessing and leaving the proposed properties onto A41/Rowton lane. At present the village struggles with the heavy volume of traffic on the A41 and roads within the village. There is often a build up of cars and heavy goods vehicles on the A41 approach to Christleton. Safety for children is an issue - houses sandwiched beteen a main road and the canal. Other issues - schools are already oversubscribed and there are ongoing drainage problems.

Comment

Representation ID: 17054

Received: 17/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Michael Rivis

As a resident of Christleton, increasing traffic from the A41 and A51 already causes severe congestion through Christleton and Littleton, particularly during incidents on these routes. Planned new high-density housing nearby would worsen these issues, while local infrastructure appears unable to support such large-scale development (or even the current population). Given current employment levels, the scale of construction does not seem necessary. Greenbelt land should be protected to preserve residents’ quality of life now and for future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 17055

Received: 17/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Glen Carty

I would like to express support for the neighbourhood plan (v31). Specifically the Green Gaps need to be preserved to avoid Christleton and neighbouring villages merging with each other and with the Chester conurbation. Development proposals should be considered together rather than individually to assess both their impact on both the villages' character and requirements for additional public services (health, transport etc.).

Comment

Representation ID: 17056

Received: 15/05/2026

Respondent: Christine Thompson

I am writing in support of the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood plan (Regulation 16).

This comprehensive plan provides a framework which will protect and retain the unique characteristics of our villages whilst allowing them to evolve to meet the challenges of the next decades. Christleton and Littleton have already undergone huge changes in recent years and are in danger of losing the uniqueness that makes them so special. It is so important that the rural feel is maintained with sensitive planning and design. There is no requirement for additional housing development within the villages. If any new housing is agreed on the periphery the need should be rigorously assessed. Any new development should be small scale with an emphasis on protecting green spaces, encouraging biodiversity and maintaining a village feel that ensures the villages retain their unique characteristics. The green belt should be respected and urban sprawl rejected to ensure that the villages retain their special status for future generations to enjoy.

Comment

Representation ID: 17057

Received: 15/05/2026

Respondent: Susan Robson

I fully support and am in favour with all the details as included in the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan ( reg. 16)

Comment

Representation ID: 17058

Received: 15/05/2026

Respondent: David Huw Morgan

I'm in agreement with the neighbourhood plan for Christleton and Littelton. However I would like to highlight areas of concern that I have:

1. CWAC are not acting responsibly if they do not measure and record particulate PM2.5 levels in Christleton and Littleton especially in their areas of significant traffic movement. The advent of Electric Vehicles whilst reducing hydrocarbon emissions are of particular concern regarding their increased weight and their effect on Tyre PM2.5 particulate generation.
2. The high traffic volumes and congestion on both the A51 and A41 within the Littleton and Christleton parishes are not being tackled. These increases in volume of traffic flow is because traffic is avoiding the M53 and M56, they have reached saturation conditions. The MOTT MACDONALD report on improving traffic flow from Junction16 on the M6 to the M53 associated with the Atlantic Gateway project highlighted that a by-pass from the river Gowy area of the A51 to the M53/A56 junction is required to reduce traffic flow to acceptable levels on the A51 through Littleton and the A41 through Christleton. It is hard to understand why CWAC has not progressed this proposal as it enhances local business's efficiency as well as the health and well being of residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 17059

Received: 16/05/2026

Respondent: Brian Inall

I have been resident in Christleton since 2013.
I have the following comments:

I am pleased to see this document. It has been well researched and a lot of thought has been put into it. Clearly it has been created with reference to other similar plans, such as 'Weston' (see typo on page 79 under Settlement Boundary), but that doesn't really detract from its value and appropriateness.

We are fearful of developers spoiling our village. Developers who only wish to make a profit and move on and who mostly disregard the wishes and needs of those who live here and bend the rules as far as they can in their favour.

So I'm concerned about development on green belt land which separates us from other nearby villages. Land which stops us becoming suburbia and retains our village identity.
Concerned about high density development that doesn't fit in.
Concerned that developers typically pay lip service to affordable homes and prefer to build larger more expensive houses.
Concerned about even more traffic with associated pollution and risks of accidents.
Concerned about the infrastructure that cannot support a lot more housing - ie: schools, medical facilities, sewerage systems.
Concerned that local employment opportunities for an increased population in Christleton isn't there, so will generate more commuting by car or require better public transport.
Concerned that views, walks and fresh air will increasingly be compromised.
Concerned that valuable wildlife/biodiversity will be compromised by reduced & fragmented habitat and more pollution.

This plan seems very sensible. I am in agreement with its contents which addresses my concerns. I wish that this plan is 'made' and becomes a legal document.

Comment

Representation ID: 17060

Received: 17/05/2026

Respondent: Mr David Harker

I am writing to confirm my support for the above Neighbourhood plan and wish for the Independent Examiner to be informed of this email.
I agree with all the points in the plan including:
• No urban sprawl
• Strengthening of and retaining of green spaces
• Having a mandatory housing design code
• Any new builds must respect our rural heritage
• Protect wildlife corridors and canal biodiversity
• Controlled growth of housing - only small low-density developments
• Infrastructure protected and no housing without improved and additional infrastructure guaranteed

Comment

Representation ID: 17061

Received: 17/05/2026

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Harker

I am writing to confirm my support of the above neighbourhood plan and would like you to ensure the External examiner gets this email message.
I agree with all the points covered in the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16)

Comment

Representation ID: 17062

Received: 18/05/2026

Respondent: Welsh Water

Thank you for consulting Dwr Cymru Welsh Water on the Christleton & Littleton Neighbourhood Development Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to engage in the Neighbourhood Plan process, and we offer the following representation for your consideration. Please note that we are the statutory undertaker for foul drainage in the area; however, we are not responsible for the potable drinking water supply.

We note that the consultation does not propose to allocate land for further development in the NDP area. Should any future planning application be submitted for development we can consider the impact of foul flows from that development on the sewerage network once we receive details of the site location, development proposals, and foul drainage strategy.

The Neighbourhood Plan also includes a couple of policies, HDC5 & INF1, that we wish to provide representations on:

Policy HDC5 Water & Drainage
We welcome the policy requirement that SuDS must be used in new developments.

The inclusion of this policy recognises the importance of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) to ensure no net deterioration to existing drainage infrastructure. The tackling of surface water at source is a vital component of sustainable development and will mitigate against overloaded sewers which can ultimately lead to flooding. Disposing of surface water in a sustainable manner by ensuring that it does not communicate with the public sewerage network protects the environment and assists in ensuring that there is sufficient capacity in the public sewerage network for foul-only flows from development sites. SuDS should be delivered in accordance with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) July 2025:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-standards-for-sustainable-drainage-systems/national-standards-for-sustainable-drainage-systems-suds#the-regulatory-framework

Policy INF1 Sewerage & Drainage
We welcome that a dedicated sewerage and drainage policy is proposed for the plan, ref INF1. Adequate drainage infrastructure is key to ensuring new development sites are sustainable, viable and deliverable. However, I believe there has been a misunderstanding in relation to our representation on the recent outline planning application for 200 homes at Whitchurch Road, Christleton (CWaC Council ref 25/02656/OUT). Our assessment is twofold – we assess the capacity of the sewerage network (the physical system of pipes, sewers etc that conveys the foul sewage to a treatment site) and the capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) which is the facility where wastewater is treated before being returned to the environment.

Our representation on the planning application 25/02656/OUT stated that “it is unlikely that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the development within the immediate public sewerage system without causing detriment to the existing services we provide to our customers, or in regard to the protection of the environment.” Please note that this comment refers to the sewerage network in proximity to the site. Page 1 and 2 of our representation on the planning application sets out a comprehensive representation relating to the sewerage network.

The sewerage network conveys foul sewage to Chester Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) which is in the Sealand Road area of Chester, and I would clarify that Chester WwTW does have treatment capacity to accept further growth, as mentioned on page 3 of our representation. I have attached a copy of our response.

In light of the above, the proposed wording of policy INF1 would require amendment to reflect the above.

I trust the above assists you with the progression of the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17063

Received: 18/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Andrew Thompson

I am writing to express my total support for the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16.

It is imperative that the region protects its green spaces and separates villages from urban areas. Should we allow urban sprawl to swallow up the unique character of these individual villages and destroy the many associated wildlife habitats around them we will never get them back.

Comment

Representation ID: 17064

Received: 19/05/2026

Respondent: The Coal Authority

Thank you for your notification of 29 April 2026 seeking the views of the Coal Authority on the above.

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.

However, the area to which this consultation relates is not located within the defined coalfield. On this basis we have no specific comments to make.

Comment

Representation ID: 17065

Received: 20/05/2026

Respondent: Mr Peter Murphy

I wish to wholeheartedly endorse the April 2026 Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan.
The Plan captures the character and essence of the village and identifies the issues facing the community, especially given the haphazard and growing developments the area is suffering from.
As a Christleton resident I am concerned the growing road traffic and housing developments proposed continue to be out of step with the needs of the villages and adoption of the Plan is a vital step in preserving the character of the Christleton and Littleton villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 17066

Received: 21/05/2026

Respondent: Ann Parfrement

I wish to express my full support for this plan which highlights the problems already being experienced in the village and which would be made worse by any further large housing development.