Having read the plan for the villages of Christleton and Littleton, I wish to lend my support to the proposals and objectives outlined.
The Villages are, as is highlighted, already beset by problems due to limited infrastructure trying to cope with increased demands. In particular commuter and school traffic.
No major housing developments should be allowed as this would only exacerbate the considerable difficulties already being experienced.

I object to development on our green belt. Use brownfield first.
Local facilities- schools, GP, Dental not able to cope with extra demand.
No thought for reducing traffic congestion. No green infrastructure.
Profits before local people.

I have read the plan for Christleton and I agree.
We need to protect our villages, and wildlife. Our villages are part of our diverse country, it's appalling how developers are being allowed to destroy our rural areas.
I have read the updated Regulation 16 version, and agree with the recommendations.

We are residents of Christleton and here are our comments on the above plan:
1. We want to remain part of the distinct village of Christleton and not be engulfed urban sprawl so allowing green spaces to separate the village areas.
2. We want these green spaces to strengthen the rural feel of the 2 villages.
3. We want to see new development fitting in with the rural style and heritage of the villages.
4. We want to see wildlife thriving through specific corridors or Green spaces.
5. We would like to see controlled growth only: small low-density development which would feel like part of a village.
New development should also provide a reasonable proportion of affordable housing to allow young couples to enter the community. Expensive high end homes are not really needed here.
6. There should be no housing where waste water/drainage and other key services are not adequate or easily available.
7. Access roads from any new developments need to be accommodated with safety considerations paramount. Village roads are already full to capacity and used as rat-runs between the A41 and A51.

Please see the attached representation to the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 consultation submitted on behalf of Bridgemere UK Limited.

I support the protection of the GREEN GAPS which provide separation between the villages, These open spaces are what makes the area so attractive to live and help to prevent the potential for urban sprawl.
I support protecting all the LOCAL GREEN SPACES which are a beneficial, fundamental part of our community,
LG1 is owned by developers and without protection is likely to be built on,
LG1 is part of the Grade II listed Christleton Hall, it should therefore be protected as such.
The Orchard/Walled garden and playing fields should be reinstated for the use of residents and wildlife

I am strongly in favour of everything set out in the plan.

To whom it may concern,

I fully agree with and support the Christleton and Littleton neighbourhood plan.

I am writing to strongly support the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan at the Regulation 16 consultation stage.
I believe the proposed Plan provides a sensible and balanced approach to protecting the character, environment, and long-term sustainability of our villages, while ensuring that any future development is appropriate and carefully managed.
In particular, I support the Plan’s aims to:
• Prevent urban sprawl and maintain green gaps between settlements
• Protect green spaces and preserve the rural character of Christleton and Littleton
• Ensure new housing reflects the character and heritage of the villages
• Support controlled, low-density growth rather than large-scale unsuitable developments
• Protect wildlife corridors, biodiversity, and natural spaces
• Ensure infrastructure and wastewater treatment capacity are adequate before additional housing is approved
I am concerned that without the protections within this Neighbourhood Plan, speculative or inappropriate housing developments could significantly damage the character of the area and place additional strain on local infrastructure and services.
The Plan appears to have been developed following extensive local consultation and reflects the priorities and concerns of residents. I therefore urge the Independent Examiner and Cheshire West and Chester Council to give full weight to the policies contained within it.
Please accept this email as my formal support for the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan.

I am a resident of Littleton - [address redacted]. While I understand the roads are bad in Christleton which is the village the plan is mostly concerned with I can only describe the A51 in Littleton as horrendous.

The residents of Christleton are lucky to have it so quiet in my personal opinion. The village of Littleton is literally split in 2 by an incredibly busy A51.

The village desperately needs an average speed limit through it to control the trucks at night which travel through at 50mph plus shaking all the houses as they go.

Crossing the road is almost a non starter during the day.

I believe average speed cameras in all the villages on the A51 corridor would discourage the use of the road by trucks at night as the overall time from Chester to the M6 would increase.

A Littleton bypass was discussed in parliament by the local MP in the early 90’s - over 30 years ago.

While I appreciate the lovely neighbourhood plan for Christleton to make it wonderful the residents of Littleton need help in making it bearable!

I agree with the Regulation 16 version of the Christleton and Littleton neighbourhood plan and fully support it.

I have had the opportunity to review the neighbourhood plan Regulation 16 for my village of Christleton and nearby Littleton.

Further to my previous note, it is clear from the plan that green space is precious around the village and in particular the Green Gaps should be preserved.(Marked G1 G2 and G3) These green spaces, including the green spaces between established properties are a haven for
wild life including birds, hedgehogs, rabbits and foxes

The pollution from traffic movement around the villages should be minimised, and the substantial release of PM 2.5 by vehicles passing by will be increased with any building plans, not least on the prepration and evelopemtn of any site, but in subsequent occupation with large traffic movements occurring on both the A41, A55 and A51 the land between Chester. PM 2.5 as is widely recognised is a pernicious particle which is associated with lung and circulatory pathology.

Pollution cannot be measured at distant sites ( already attempted in one proposal) and then extrapolated backwards to another. There are too many confounders to make any measurement forecast reliable. Our own village measurements show substantial pollution during peak traffic movements at both ends of the day, but particularly in the afternoon on the A41, which is frequently the site of severe congestion from
the "Hamburger Roundabout" backwards/southbound along the A41 to Waverton.

Any development will only worsen this pollution for passers by, and residents who are entitled to clean air.

So far as housing needs are concerned, we have a substantially unoccupied development, known as Wildwood, at the junctions of the A41 and the Hamburger roundabout, with around 140 vacant potential homes. Others, largely composed of houses, are also vacant in nearby villages where there has been over development and consequently voids in occupation.

Chester is not a high demand area for employment, and any development would likely attempt to be of a commuter belt type, with further demands on infrastructure, schools and access. The particular type of highway and its proximity to a potential development within our green spaces would not allow safe traffic movement given the numbers proposed by developers.

There are lessons to be learnt from recent development in the Saighton Camp where the roads have not been adopted, the sewage drainage is inadequate, no enforcement action has been taken, at least obviously, to ensure that the development has met reasonable building
and planning laws I would be very disappointed to see this happen anywhere near my village.

I hope that you will take my note into consideration.

As a resident of Christleton for nearly 30 years now I feel that I must comment about the proposals to build more housing in this area. In short I feel strongly that any significant development is inappropriate given that the infrastructure here doesn’t cope with the existing needs of the villages as witnessed by the regular traffic chaos and flooding which also occurs in Christleton. In saying this I speak as someone whose home has been inundated with sewage-contaminated water on at least four occasions. The reason for this is that the roadway drainage system here has never been significantly upgraded since it was installed in 1908 and I gather that there are no plans so to do despite the proposals for more housing here. Similarly, the transport infrastructure/roadways are insufficient to meet today’s needs and, once again, I don’t hear of any proposals to improve this in any meaningful way nor can I envisage how this could be done in this old village.

In summary, any new housing developments which bring more traffic, more surfaces to drain and more sewage to treat are not appropriate in this village.

Comments relevant to all local plans. I would like to see:
1. A ‘facilities first’ approach to new build, where amenities promised as conditions of planning permission are delivered wholly or in part before the developer’s main part to the plan.
2. There should be some sort of rating given to every development. Based on what was delivered vs. What was promised at an appropriate time. A sort of ‘trip advisor’ type evaluation of projects.

Comments related to Christleton and Littleton’s neighbourhood plan:
1. It’s good. Many hours obviously went into it.
2. It supports maintaining a community, with existing village life at its core whilst respecting change, plans for future life and growth.
3. It recognises and provides guidance on the danger of urban sprawl and ribbon development from Chester and between villages so that they maintain their identity. But this plan needs ‘teeth’ to stop it happening. What powers will it have of collaboration, support and most importantly final say? That’s what it needs.

With reference to the Neighbourhood Plan, Policy GG4 - Land Separating Christleton from Waverton and the planning application mentioned in it 25/03351/OUT for 32 dwellings on
Green Belt land between Birch Trees and Tree Tops,Brown Heath Road,Christleton,Chester.

Being a resident of [redacted],Christleton for 26 years whose property backs onto this land,
I strongly support the policy and have objected to this planning application.
Could you please view and take into account my comments on the Cheshire West and Chester
planning applications website, public comment submitted date Mon 01 Dec 2025.

I would also like to mention there have been two previous planning applications on this Green Belt
Land, and would like to see some form of legal action generated to ensure developers cannot keep submitting speculative and solely profit motivated applications after planning is refused.
The previous applications are :-
98/00846/OUT dated 28 SEP 1998 - REFUSED.
Reason - In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed residential development
would result in the further coalescence of the villages of Christleton and Waverton to the detriment of the openess of this part of the designated North Cheshire Green Belt.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, this development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
09/11614/OUT dated 22 OCT 2009 - WITHDRAWN.
Reason - Following strong opposition to the proposal.

I concur with the CGBA that the Brownfield Land Register should be updated to develop on suitable, mainly urban Brownfield sites.
Promoting new housing in areas of highest need, and close to existing employment areas.
This approach would protect our valuable Green Belt for our future generations and wildlife to appreciate and enjoy, and help preserve the distinctive nature of individual parishes.

As a Christleton resident for 25 years and having reviewed the Christleton and Littleton neighbourhood plan (regulation 16) I fully support the plan. It has matured over the past few years and I believe it reflects the needs of current and future residents whilst also ensuring that the character of the villages is protected.

I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Christleton to express my full and absolute support of the above Neighbourhood Plan. [address redacted]

The Plan provides a locally led, evidence based framework for managing inevitable future development while protecting the distinct character, landscape setting and sustainability of the two villages. Rather than opposing development outright, it seeks to direct it in a way that reflects local needs and planning policy.

Without the Neighbourhood Plan, planning decisions affecting Christleton and Littleton will be driven primarily by borough wide policies and individual planning applications. The Neighbourhood Plan gives the local communities a legally recognised voice in shaping how development occurs, ensuring that growth is accompanied by the protection of green gaps, heritage, biodiversity, infrastructure and village character.

The Plan does all of the following:

1. It accepts sustainable development rather than simply resisting it. Sustainable development is explicitly supported, recognising the need for housing suitable for meeting the requirements of the local people while requiring development to be sympathetic to the character of the villages.
2. It protects the separate identity of Christleton and Littleton. A central objective is retaining the distinct character of both settlements and maintaining green gaps and Green Belt buffers between the villages and Chester. Many residents will see this as fundamental to preserving what makes the area unique.
3. It addresses real local infrastructure concerns, including traffic congestion on the A41/A51 corridor, air quality, cycling and walking routes, flood management, biodiversity and pressure on community services.
4. It is community led and is evidence based. It reflects years of local engagement.
5. It strengthens the community’s position in future planning decisions. In practice, it will increase the weight given to local priorities when development proposals are put forward.

In summary, the Neighbourhood Plan strikes a balanced approach by supporting sustainable housing and economic development while safeguarding the environmental, heritage and community assets that define Christleton and Littleton. It gives locally supported policies statutory weight and is, therefore, the best available mechanism for ensuring future growth enhances rather than erodes the character and sustainability of the two villages.

Unfortunately, there are many recent examples where unsympathetic development has come to threaten this character and sustainability, such as the loss of the Orchard and the restriction to the green space within the boundaries of Christleton Hall. The Neighbourhood Plan is vital to the protection of such facilities for the benefit of the local communities.

I am writing to express my strong support for the policies within the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan that seek to protect Green Gap 2, the orchard and the Law College playing field.
Green Gap 2 is an important area of open countryside that contributes significantly to the character and identity of Christleton. It provides a valued green setting to the village and helps maintain the separation between Christleton and neighbouring settlements. I am concerned by any proposal to weaken or remove the protections afforded to this area.
Christleton is a wonderful place to live, with a strong sense of community and a distinctive village character that is highly valued by residents. The green gaps surrounding the village play a vital role in preserving this character and preventing the gradual merging of Christleton with neighbouring settlements. Any erosion of these protections would be detrimental not only to Christleton but also to the surrounding villages, all of which have their own unique identities, histories and community character. Maintaining clear separation between settlements is essential to ensuring that these communities retain the qualities that make them special places to live.
Green Gap 2 also provides an important habitat and wildlife corridor for a wide range of species. The area supports badgers, foxes, bats, birds of prey and many common garden bird species, all of which contribute to the biodiversity and ecological value of the village. The loss or fragmentation of this green space would inevitably reduce the habitat available to wildlife and diminish one of the area's valuable natural assets.
In addition to its ecological importance, Green Gap 2 is a well-used recreational space for local residents. It is regularly enjoyed by dog walkers, runners, walkers and others pursuing active lifestyles. The open countryside setting provides opportunities for exercise, informal recreation and connection with nature, all of which contribute positively to residents' physical and mental wellbeing. Protecting this space will ensure that future generations can continue to benefit from both its environmental and recreational value.
I also strongly support the designation and continued protection of the orchard associated with the former Law College site as part of Local Green Space LGS1. The orchard forms part of the historic character of the area and provides important biodiversity benefits. It is a valued landscape feature and its protection through LGS1 recognises its importance to the community in planning terms.
In addition, I support the continued protection of the Law College playing field, also designated as part of Local Green Space LGS1, as an important local green space. This open area provides valuable recreational and visual benefits for the local communities and contributes significantly to the spacious and attractive character of the development. It is an important community asset and should remain protected from future development.
When purchasing our home, we were informed that residents would have access to the playing field. Furthermore, the original planning permission included communal access to the walled garden. These community benefits formed part of the understanding and expectations of many residents when choosing to live here and the wider community and should be respected and maintained.
For all of these reasons—including the protection of village identity, prevention of settlement coalescence, preservation of biodiversity, provision of recreational opportunities, safeguarding of valued community assets and the importance of designated Local Green Spaces—I strongly support the continued protection of Green Gap 2, the orchard and the Law College playing field within the Neighbourhood Plan.
Protecting these spaces is not simply about preventing development; it is about preserving the unique character, identity and sense of place that residents value so highly in Christleton and the surrounding villages.

I am writing to express my strong support for the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan, especially where it relates to Green Gap 2 and Local Green Space LGS1.

Green Gap 2 is essential to maintaining the separate identity and rural setting of Christleton and Littleton. Its protection prevents incremental urban sprawl, preserves important open views and countryside character, supports biodiversity networks and reinforces the strategic separation between the villages and Chester. Once such a gap is developed, the loss if effectively irreversible. The designation is, therefore, consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan’s objectives of protecting local character, landscape setting and sustainable development.

With regard Local Green Space LGS1, the designation and continued protection of the Orchard associated with the former Law College is essential as it forms an important part of the heritage and historic character of the area. It was and remains a valued landscape feature.

In addition, the continued protection of the Law College playing field as designated as part of Local Green SpaceLGS1 as an important local green space, should be welcomed as it provides valuable recreational benefits for the local community and contributes significantly to the character of the development. It is an important community asset and, as such, should be protected from any future development, thereby maintaining the village character.

I am writing in to express my support for the policies in the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood plan that aim to protect Green Gap 2, the Orchard and the law college playing field.
Green gap 2 is an extremely important area of open countryside that contributes so much to the people of Christleton. It provides an important habitat to a wide range of wildlife including badgers, bats, woodpeckers, birds of prey, foxes etc. All this contributes to the biodiversity and ecology of the area as well as providing a well used recreational space for people to walk-run through, exercise their dogs all of which contribute so much to the village.
This Green gap 2 also segregates the Christleton area from Littleton and to lose this very important piece of green space would take away the divide and end up merging the villages which to my mind would be criminal.
I also support the continued protection of local green space LGS1. The Orchard adds to the historic character of the area.
In Addition I strongly support the continued protection of Local Green Space LGS1 in terms of the Law College playing field. This area is very visually important to the area around the Historic Law College as well as supporting badger sets, birds of prey etc.
When purchasing our home we were led to believe the college playing field would remain as it is for the benefit of the community. I hasten to add our homes are built on a brownfield site not greenfield.
For all the mentioned reasons including keeping the unique character of the villages, safeguarding wildlife, and valuable community assets I strongly support the continued protection of Green Gap 2, the Orchard and the Law College Playing Field.

I write to express my very strong support for the policies within the Christleton and Littleton neighbourhood plan that seek to protect Green Gap 2, the Law College playing field and the Orchard.
Green Gap 2 is an extremely important piece of green belt land that separates Christleton from Littleton and to reduce or remove this would end up joining the two villages together which after centuries of being independent villages should be unthinkable. This green belt land also supports an abundance of wildlife such as bats, woodpeckers and countless other bird species along with badgers, foxes, hedgehogs etc. and to lose this valuable asset should not even be up for consideration.
Green Gap 2 also provides an excellent exercise area for people to benefit from with lots of people jogging through or walking their dogs.
The other major concerns are the impact on already extremely busy roads in the villages and the impact on essential services like doctors, dentists, schools etc as well as pollution if more houses are built in the village.
I also support the neighbourhood plan in regards to protecting the Law college playing field and the Orchard as they are both important spaces for the local community as well as protecting wildlife.
Protecting these spaces is not all about preventing development it is about protecting important green belt land and preserving the unique character of the villages before it is lost forever.

I write as a Christleton resident in support of Policy GG1-5 Green Gaps. A distinctive and valuable feature of the area is that the villages of Christleton, Littleton, Rowton and Waverton are separated by green gaps which preserve the distinctive elements of these settlements with many associated environmental and community advantages. Erosion of green gaps by unnecessary housing development would result in highly undesirable urban sprawl with loss of all the advantages of these green gaps outlined in the Neighbourhood Plan.

I am writing to express my strong support for the Christleton and Littleton
Neighbourhood Plan especially the elements that protect Green Gap 2, the orchard and the Law College playing field. These important elements of the village should be protected and I am concerned by any proposal to
weaken or remove the protections afforded to these areas.

I strongly support the designation and continued protection of the orchard associated with the former Law College site as part of Local Green Space LGS1.

I strongly support the continued protection of the Law College playing field, also designated as part
of Local Green Space LGS1. This is an important community asset and green space.

I am also writing in support of the continued protection of Green Gap 2.

As a resident of College Green (the development on the old law college site) I am extremely concerned about the fact that we were misled by the developers. We were told on numerous occasions that we would have access to the "playing field", and it was marked as "playing field" on some of the documents when purchasing the home. As a parent of young children the access to and outlook over the "playing field" was one of the selling points of our specific house. This was stated to us on numerous times by members of the team at Castle Green (because we were deciding between two different plots). Furthermore, the original planning permission included communal access to the walled garden. the treatment of this area by the developer leads me to believe that these areas need protecting in the strongest possible way.

As a family with three young children, who attend the local primary school we are really integrated and contribute to village life. Christleton is a wonderful place to live and these green spaces provide valued green space to the village and help maintain separation between the neighbouring villages. Any erosion of these protections would be detrimental not only to Christleton but also to
the surrounding villages.

Green Gap 2 and the playing field also provide an important habitat for a wide range of species. The area supports badgers, foxes, bats, birds of prey. We have seen these animals in both of these spaces and believe they should be protected.

Green Gap 2 is a well-used space for local
residents including dog walkers, runners, walkers and others. The playing field has been fenced off which has caused us some distress but before then my children loved playing in the space (as per the initial plans) and I would often see dog walkers on the area, both spaces contributing significantly to residents' physical and mental wellbeing.

Protecting these spaces is not simply about preventing development; it is about preserving the unique character, identity and sense of place that residents value so highly in Christleton and the surrounding villages, and ensuring that this is protected for future generations.

We want to preserve the green spaces that separate our villages from each other and from Waverton. Each village should retain the rural feel of a village and not be consumed within the urban of Chester.
The green spaces should also be retained to protect wildlife and retain the canal biodiversity buffer.
Any development should be controlled and small low-density that feel like part of a village. The local infrastructure needs to be able to support any low-density development.

I wish to express my support for Christleton & Littleton’s local plan.
The government is driving for over 18,000 new homes in the next 18 years and this seems to have encouraged builders to apply for building permission without considering reality. Dumping many new houses on the edge of our villages destroys the green gaps necessary to maintain our communities and these consequences are forever.
I urge the council to protect the character of the area. I am particularly concerned about Wyldewoods which was built for older residents and yet remains mainly unoccupied. It seems obvious that entrance and exits for both drivers and walkers are dangerous in an over developed area.
Destroying the 300 year old orchard at Christleton Hall presumably with the idea of development is not the way ahead. I note that men have been sent to prison further north but no such action was taken here. Please consider the future, the overloaded local services, green space provision, and take notice of the local plan.

I have been a resident of Christleton for nearly 50 years and wish to express my profound concern and opposition to the scale of development proposed in and around our village. I am deeply anxious about the number of housing developments being proposed and the significant impact they would have on Christleton and neighbouring communities.

The proposals would fundamentally alter the character of the area. Green Belt land is designated to prevent urban sprawl and to safeguard the identity of individual settlements. Building on this land would risk the coalescence of Christleton with neighbouring villages and undermine their distinct rural character. The continued loss of open countryside would gradually erode local amenity and the separation that defines these communities, resulting in an expanding urban area extending from Chester.

I am not trying to argue against all new housing. But I am suggesting that they should be built in appropriate locations that minimise the harm to existing communities. Consideration should also be given to the number of homes built on individual sites taking into account the combined impact of different developments across the wider area. Also taking into account the pressure on increased traffic, school and healthcare.

I urge decision-makers to protect Christleton and the neighbouring villages. Try to understand what makes these communities special—their history, character, green spaces, and sense of place. If these qualities are sacrificed for short-term development, those responsible may ultimately be remembered for presiding over the irreversible loss of a unique part of Cheshire's heritage.

I am writing to express my strong support for the policies within the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan that seek to protect Green Gap 2, the orchard and the Law College playing field.

Green Gap 2 is an important area of open countryside that contributes significantly to the character and identity of Christleton. It provides a valued green setting to the village and helps maintain the separation between Christleton and neighbouring settlements. I am concerned by any proposal to weaken or remove the protections afforded to this area.

Christleton is a wonderful place to live, with a strong sense of community and a distinctive village character that is highly valued by residents. The green gaps surrounding the village play a vital role in preserving this character and preventing the gradual merging of Christleton with neighbouring settlements. Any erosion of these protections would be detrimental not only to Christleton but also to the surrounding villages, all of which have their own unique identities, histories and community character. Maintaining clear separation between settlements is essential to ensuring that these communities retain the qualities that make them special places to live.

Green Gap 2 also provides an important habitat and wildlife corridor for a wide range of species. The area supports badgers, foxes, bats, birds of prey and many common garden bird species, all of which contribute to the biodiversity and ecological value of the village. The loss or fragmentation of this green space would inevitably reduce the habitat available to wildlife and diminish one of the area's valuable natural assets.

In addition to its ecological importance, Green Gap 2 is a well-used recreational space for local residents. It is regularly enjoyed by dog walkers, runners, walkers and others pursuing active lifestyles. The open countryside setting provides opportunities for exercise, informal recreation and connection with nature, all of which contribute positively to residents' physical and mental wellbeing. Protecting this space will ensure that future generations can continue to benefit from both its environmental and recreational value.

I also strongly support the designation and continued protection of the orchard associated with the former Law College site as part of Local Green Space LGS1. The orchard forms part of the historic character of the area and provides important biodiversity benefits. It is a valued landscape feature and its protection through LGS1 recognises its importance to the community in planning terms.

In addition, I support the continued protection of the Law College playing field, also designated as part of Local Green Space LGS1, as an important local green space. This open area provides valuable recreational and visual benefits for the local communities and contributes significantly to the spacious and attractive character of the development. It is an important community asset and should remain protected from future development.

When purchasing our home, we were informed that residents would have access to the playing field. Furthermore, the original planning permission included communal access to the walled garden. These community benefits formed part of the understanding and expectations of many residents when choosing to live here and the wider community and should be respected and maintained.

For all of these reasons—including the protection of village identity, prevention of settlement coalescence, preservation of biodiversity, provision of recreational opportunities, safeguarding of valued community assets and the importance of designated Local Green Spaces—I strongly support the continued protection of Green Gap 2, the orchard and the Law College playing field within the Neighbourhood Plan.

Protecting these spaces is not simply about preventing development; it is about preserving the unique character, identity and sense of place that residents value so highly in Christleton and the surrounding villages.

Please register my unreserved support for this plan.
Confined as it is between the A41 and A51 corridors, the area must retain as much green open space as possible to maintain its washed-over Green Belt status, particularly as the local housing needs survey shows minimal demand for new housing. Furthermore, there are over 100 unsold dwellings available in the Wyldwoods retirement village at Boughton Heath which, with a change of use permission from Planning, would satisfy local needs for many years and probably avoid insolvency of the developer.

We are registering our opposition to the proposed building of a substantial number of houses within Christleton and Littleton areas for the following reasons:
1. Increase of traffic on A41 and A51 .
These roads already carry tens of thousands of vehicles every day of every week of every year, have a poor safety record, suffer at least twice daily and often more frequent long traffic queues and have nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5 levels which are many times the guideline levels, equivalent to a major UK city , representing a major health risk, especially to those living beside these roads. The road through Christleton village is already gridlocked at times as children and staff arrive at and leave at the High School. It is crucial to prevent an increase in traffic on all of these already highly over-congested roads, which would occur with a large housing development.
2. Wildlife corridors etc.
It is vital to maintain and enhance the wildlife corridors, rural pathways including those skirting the canal, cycle lanes and the green spaces around the two villages for both the physical and mental health of the residents. There is a wealth of evidence supporting the necessity of these spaces for well-being. Also important is the maintenance of trees and hedges to encourage wildlife and reducing global warming.
3 Maintenance of the characteristics within the villages, and protected by the green belt.
It is important to preserve heritage assets with no urban sprawl which would unite the two villages.
4. Appropriate housing development
While we acknowledge that there is a need for an increase in housing provision, this needs to be both controlled and consistent with the character of the villages and thus a mandatory Housing Design Code must be in place ,with a preference for affordable low density housing , which must be strictly adhered to by the building developers and contractors.
We trust you accept that we write this in good faith for the wellbeing of all.

Yes — you’re right. The previous one was too broad. The stronger letters are specific because they mention **Green Gap 2, the orchard, the Law College playing field, LGS1, wildlife, coalescence, community access and the walled garden**.

Here is a more detailed version:

Dear Neighbourhood Planning Team,

I am writing to give my strong support to the policies in the Christleton and Littleton Neighbourhood Plan which protect Green Gap 2, the orchard and the former Law College playing field.

My family and I moved to Christleton recently in June 2024, and one of the main reasons we chose this area was because it still felt like a true village, surrounded by open countryside, rather than simply another suburb of Chester. The open green spaces around Christleton were a major factor in our decision to live here.

Green Gap 2 is particularly important because it helps protect the clear separation between Christleton, Littleton and the wider Chester area. Without this protection, there is a real risk that development would gradually erode the open countryside between settlements, causing the villages to merge and lose their individual character. This would permanently damage one of the qualities that makes Christleton such a special place to live.

Since moving here, we have come to appreciate how important this land is to everyday village life. The area is used by walkers, dog walkers, runners and families, and it provides a valuable connection to nature on residents’ doorsteps. These spaces are not just empty fields; they are part of the daily life, wellbeing and identity of the community.

I also believe Green Gap 2 has significant ecological value. The area provides habitat and movement corridors for wildlife including birds, bats, foxes, badgers and other species. Any loss or fragmentation of this green space would reduce biodiversity and weaken the natural environment that currently surrounds the village.

I strongly support the protection of the orchard associated with the former Law College site as part of Local Green Space LGS1. The orchard is an important landscape feature and contributes to both the historic character and biodiversity of the area. It should be retained and protected as a valued local asset.

I also support the continued protection of the Law College playing field as part of Local Green Space LGS1. This open space contributes to the spacious, green character of the area and provides important visual and recreational value. When residents chose to purchase homes here, many did so with the understanding that the playing field and wider green setting would remain part of the community environment. Any weakening of this protection would be deeply disappointing and would undermine the expectations residents had when choosing to live here.

The original planning permission also included community benefits such as access to the walled garden, and I believe these promises and expectations should be respected. These green spaces form part of the reason people have invested their lives, homes and families in Christleton.

For these reasons, I strongly support the continued protection of Green Gap 2, the orchard and the Law College playing field within the Neighbourhood Plan. Protecting these areas is not simply about resisting development; it is about preserving the village identity, landscape setting, biodiversity, recreational value and sense of place that make Christleton and Littleton distinctive communities.

Yours faithfully,

James Prince

Christleton Resident