Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 7678

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

I&O_8165
The FNPMG consider that Neighbourhood Plans can and should continue to play a major role and contribution in support of the Local Plan. In your introduction you list the following studies:  Retail and Town Centres Study (in preparation) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (in preparation) Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (in preparation) Housing Needs Assessment (to be prepared) Green Belt Study (to be prepared) Infrastructure Delivery Plan (to be prepared) Strategic Viability Assessment (to be prepared) Transport Assessment (to be prepared) Land Availability Assessment (in preparation).   We look forward to reviewing those reports and contributing our information from the Neighbourhood Plan process and the community’s current views to those reports. They will have a significant impact on the final plan.


Sent on behalf of the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

Comment

Representation ID: 7681

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

I&O_8168
We also note that in V1 you would expect the larger settlements, including Frodsham to have an individual vision or “Place Specific Plan”. We welcome this approach as it was our key starting point for the FNP and a Housing Needs Assessment was one of our first tasks.


Sent on behalf of the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

Comment

Representation ID: 7682

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

I&O_8169
We discussed the Options A, B & C and concluded that they should not be seen as a binary choice. There is a cacophony of local opinion in favour of Option A, Maintaining the Green Belt. Option B clearly has merit as well Our conclusion, before we have seen the Housing Needs Assessment and before the Vision for Frodsham has been developed, is that whilst some parts of each Option A or B would be closest to meeting the community’s wishes, Option C and the limited and targeted use of land currently in the Green Belt may need to be considered.  In summary no option is suitable in its entirety. The FNPMG have looked carefully at all of the sites in the HELAA as a possible and practical way forward. We note that additional sites may come forward during this Consultation, which may impact on our initial conclusions.


Sent on behalf of the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

Comment

Representation ID: 7683

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

I&O_8170
Having canvassed and monitored local opinion and referred back to the FNP consultation the following conclusions have been reached.  The Consultation asks for views about FRO/001 FRO/002 and FRO/003.   FRO/ 003 Land between Chester Road and the railway line going west towards Godscroft Hall. The community are generally against development in this area. A planning application for this site, Chester Road/Dig Lane, is in process for 91 dwellings. The FNPMG regard this site as the most appropriate development site outside of the Green Belt. Its proximity to the town centre, the railway station and access to several bus routes along the A56 are important positive factors. The flat terrain mean that walking and cycling will be straightforward and achieve the Neighbourhood Plans key objectives to promote the health and wellbeing and achieve sustainable development.  It is acknowledged that this site is in the Green Belt. However, the site may meet several of the criteria to be considered “Grey Belt”. Two further sites down Hately Lane have also been suggested in the Desktop Study. The one to the north of Hatley Lane, abutting the Dig Lane development, could provide 86 houses. This site forms a further extension of the settlement without significantly impacting on the existing Green Belt. It could be considered dependent upon the outcome of the Housing Needs Assessment and the Vision for Frodsham. The one to the south of Hately Lane could provide 88 houses. However, it is on the other side of the natural barrier of Hatley Lane and Dig Lane and into the open land between Frodsham and Helsby. This site also borders Chester Road. Any development here could lead to a domino effect with field after field being the subject of planning applications and potential appeals. This would completely change the character of Frodsham and have a big impact on services, infrastructure, Health and Educational provisions. This is a major concern, and our conclusion is that this site should be screened out. This whole of area FRO/003 is in the Green Belt but there may well be a case for that to be underlined in some way as it is a key settlement gap.        FRO 01 Land to the east of the Lakes Estate up towards Bradley This location was screened out for the following reasons: This area was at the heart of the community’s concerns when they responded in the development of the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan. The loss of amenity in this area will be significant and the slopes of the Weaver Valley should remain fully in the Green Belt. Any incursion in this area will gradually see development creep towards the ancient woodland of Hob Hey Wood, (which is protected in perpetuity under Fields in Trust) and down to the River Weaver. The response on social media to the inclusion of this area of land was considerable and totally against any development here. Further concerns include more traffic congestion and pressure on the Fluin Lane Junction and access to and from Langdale Way along with the historical service issues and surface water drainage on the Lakes Estate. Development here may also be curtailed by the potential for the area to be designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its recognition as a key part of the Sandstone Ridge designation in the near future.   FRO/ 002 Land to the east Kingsley Road up at Five Crosses and back towards Bradley. This site was screened out for the following reasons: The feedback during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan was clear, as is the current social media response which was over whelming and completely negative. Access from Overton and Five Crosses to the centre of the town and its services is difficult. This encourages people to drive, as the distance and elevation just does not support active travel. This was confirmed in the Background to Frodsham Draft document. There was also a comment that Frodsham “does not need more million-pound houses”. It needs to facilitate downsizing and first homes as well as more social housing as identified in the housing needs survey with the NP.   In studying the consultation documents, we believe that there are opportunities to meet the housing targets on alternative sites, both within Frodsham’s settlement boundary and using registered brownfield sites, whilst acknowledging some other suggested sites have attributes that will require the release of green belt. The sites below have been identified in the HELAA, or CWaC’s desktop review. Comments and concerns are outlined against each site. The FNPMG recognise the challenge facing CWAC and we believe that our pragmatic and practical way of considering how best to develop a solution can make a useful contribution. The Community clearly want as little development as possible, many wanting none at all. These suggestions maximise the opportunity within the settlement boundary, brownfield sites and look to FRO/003 to provide the way forward, screening out FRRO/001 and FRO/002 from further consideration.


Sent on behalf of the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group