PROPOSED RESPONSE FROM THE PARKGATE SOCIETY TO THE CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
AUGUST 2025
NE1: Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Neston and Parkgate, as set out in NP 1 'Neston and Parkgate' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
We do not agree. The approach does not take into account the individual characteristics of the Neston and Parkgate area. There is, for instance, no mention of either the Parkgate or the Neston Conservation area as a planning consideration. Any proposed development will impact the visual coherence of the area, including its architectural style, historical significance and overall character. It will also result in a threat to the heritage value of the area.
The Parkgate Society regards preservation of the Green Belt as an overriding priority and under no circumstances would we be in agreement to development on the greenbelt in the local area. Depending on which Spatial strategy options is accepted, the proposals for a significant number of new houses to be built around the area would be bound to alter the ‘rural’ nature of the area and to impact on the relevant townscapes.
Equally the approach does not take into account the impact of any developments on the environment and pollution, transportation, and on local amenities and services.
Impact on the environment
The area lies within a floodplain and is at risk of environmental degradation. The lower part of the area (adjacent to the marsh) already experiences flooding issues during winter months – any further disturbance to ground water that drains to that area is only likely to increase flood risks.
There would have to be massive investment made for increased levels of sewerage: the River Dee already has above average levels of sewerage dumped into the river from Quayside, and it is well documented that the sewerage treatment works on the Old Quay (upstream of Parkgate) are at over capacity.
Impact on traffic and transportation
Any proposed development will increase congestion and affect local road networks (roads which are at present not well maintained), and will create safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. The Parade in Parkgate is already very congested and Leighton Road is not suitable to take any more traffic.
There is already insufficient provision for parking or public transportation. Despite Neston having its own train station, the service is very limited in terms of direct destinations and the surrounding infrastructure is not suitable for increased traffic or park and ride facilities. There are limited opportunities for local employment on the Clayhill industrial Estate, but there is currently no train service to Deeside Industrial Park or Cheshire Oaks which are large local employers.
Impact on local amenities and services
Any large-scale development will have a detrimental impact on local amenities and services. Neston High School and the local primary schools are already at maximum capacity. There will be an increased strain on infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, and other public services. Any development will affect the availability of essential amenities, such as shops, parks, or recreational spaces.
HO 3: We suggest specialist student accommodation should be encouraged on the Leahurst campus of the University of Liverpool.
HO 4: We agree with the proposals on affordable housing.
HW 1: We agree.
OS 1: We agree.
OS 4: We consider that the present order of provision of open space in new developments is appropriate and more flexibility would be detrimental.
OS 5: We agree.
FW1: We agree.
We are particularly concerned that :
- drainage issues are considered in an area such as the proposed NE01 since we know that surface run off already significantly floods the Wirral Way every winter and properties at the bottom of Boathouse Lane sometimes.
Furthermore for all of Neston and Parkgate we are aware that:
- the sewage works on Old Quay Lane is already at capacity.
- sewage “overspill” occurs frequently on to the Dee marshes (a Special Area of Conservation, a Special Protection Area and an area of Special Scientific Interest) frequently every year. For example, at the Marshlands Road site there were 24 sewage dumps for a total of 308 hours in 2024. The impact of these issues on the Dee Estuary Special Protection area and its biodiversity was recognised by CWAC in its letter to the Secretary of State of 7/10/2022.
- the supply of fresh water is near capacity.
FW 4: We believe it is self-evident that water supply and waste water/sewage capacity issues must be dealt with BEFORE significant additional housing development is allowed.
LA 4: We agree. We note that much of the land around Neston & Parkgate is within the “Dee Coastal Area of Special County Value”.
LA 5: The principles supporting the designation of ASCVs have not changed and so we see no these areas need to be reviewed.
GI 1: We agree. We feel that this is very important. We would suggest that the considerations relating to peat should also apply to any proposed development on the present and previous (now drained) saltmarshes of the Dee estuary, since it is now recognised that such areas have captured just as much carbon dioxide as peat.
GI 2: We would support a larger ratio, say 3:1, for a tree replacement policy.
GI 5: We feel functionally linked land should be included.
HI 1: We strongly agree.
EN 1: We partially agree but feel that Criterion 5. (The cumulative impacts of existing and proposed developments on the landscape, natural environment and surrounding users will be acceptable) should have the addition of the words “and must be mitigated and minimised” to the end of the sentence.
EN 3: We agree but note that the “Landscape Sensitivity Study and Guidance on Wind and Solar Photovoltaic Developments (2016)” does not consider possible effects on wildlife, and in particular on the likely effect of birds. This is of singular importance for Neston & Parkgate in view of the internationally recognised importance of the Dee estuary for migratory birds. This is of obvious relevance over the Dee estuary itself (and we note the findings of the study over the high sensitivity of the estuary itself) but also for the land around the estuary: flocks of low-flying birds can be readily observed over such land as they come from and go to the estuary. We feel that this consideration should be explicitly included in EN2.
EN 4: We agree but note that the “Landscape Sensitivity Study and Guidance on Wind and Solar Photovoltaic Developments (2016)” does not consider possible effects on wildlife, and in particular on the likely effect of birds. This is of singular importance for Neston & Parkgate in view of the internationally recognised importance of the Dee estuary for migratory birds. We recognise that solar farms may have both negative and positive impacts on birds. We feel that any proposed schemes should include explicit steps to mitigate any harms to birds and to maximise biodiversity on the site.