Comment

Representation ID: 57

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Smith

1.6, 1.17 and 1.19
I&O_61
1.6 I support the preparation of a single Local Plan document. The current two documents are unhelpful and difficult to use. 1.17 The develpoment of a authority-wide Design Code would be helpful, but it needs to allow for neighbourhood-specific additional design features to be easily added rather than each neighbourhood having to duplicate areas already covered by the authority-wide document. 1.19 The evidence base documents need to cross-refer in a coherent manner. The Housing Needs Assessment should relate to actual employment needs and also consider the transportation routes employees will need to take from their homes to places of employment. Critically, the infrastructure delivery document must take realistic account of the planned expansion of some communities and the burden that will be placed on critical infrastructure such as schools, the road network and drainage. The Green Belt Study is key as adjustments to the boundary of the Cheshire Green Belt could have a major impact on the location of new development in some key service centres (notably Kelsall). The current availability of only the LAA means that the location of new development is in danger of being entirely led by developers rather than the needs of local communities and land use strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 87

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Cockburn

Inform the new Local Plan
I&O_108
There is a need for additional social, amenities and educational capacity and this should be taken into account.  More housing means more families which means even more pressure on the existing social, amenities and schools.  A needs assessment is essential.  The existing system is already creaking.

Comment

Representation ID: 219

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: donna Jackson

I&O_249
School, health infrastructure and traffic management, on a road that already suffers badly when there are accidents on M56 , need to be assessed in light of massive development on old BICC site where hundreds of houses are being built but have not been occupied yet and planning being sought for hundreds more

Comment

Representation ID: 255

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Rimmer

I&O_285
No, you need to be out and visible in local communities and actually speak to residents about the issues they are facing due to excessive building without the crucial infrastructure and expanded services

Comment

Representation ID: 289

Received: 21/07/2025

Respondent: Tim Ashcroft

I&O_319
This might be covered in the Infrastructure \plan - however  it needs a plan for developing local community services such as medical and educational facilities to meet the growing demands of the local community. Currently this is NOT happening.

Comment

Representation ID: 377

Received: 26/07/2025

Respondent: Paul Holden

I&O_452
Yes I would agree

Comment

Representation ID: 669

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Hughes

I&O_755

Comment

Representation ID: 801

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Dale

IN1
I&O_905
It is important that the impact of a substantial increase in development on the landscape of Cheshire West should be carefully considered. Therefore the existing or refreshed Landscape Character assessment and Local Landscape Designation Study should form part of the evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 954

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Smith

I&O_1058
Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 1251

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1356
Omissions are local Neighbourhood plans (some of which are still in date) Nature recovery sites, brown field sites, historic sites and finalised evidence including housing need assessment

Comment

Representation ID: 1475

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Andrea Quinton

I&O_1583
Further evidence will include the need for the support planning around any additional development.  Road structure? Schools? Doctor surgeries? Dentists? Parks?  None of that ever appears to be considered so it needs to be included and probably even agreed first before anything else is agreed. It is no good agreeing to an additional 5000 homes if there is still a single carriageway bridge into Northwich from barnton and a swing bridge on the A49 which breaks in the summer heat? 

Comment

Representation ID: 1659

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board

Agent: NHS Property Services Ltd

I&O_1769
General Comments on Evidence Base relating to Healthcare Infrastructure The provision of adequate healthcare infrastructure is in our view critical to the delivery of sustainable development. We recommend the Council engage with the NHS on an on-going basis as part of preparing the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). A sound IDP must include sufficient detail to provide clarity around the healthcare infrastructure required to support growth, and to ensure that both planning obligations and the capital allocation processes for the CIL effectively support and result in capital funding towards delivery of the required infrastructure. We would welcome the opportunity to meet to discuss this further in due course. Related to this, appropriate healthcare costs should be factored into the Local Plan Viability Assessment for relevant typologies. Such an approach means that developers are adequately informed in advance that they may be required to make contributions towards healthcare infrastructure. A separate cost input for health infrastructure in the plan viability assessment would ensure that healthcare mitigation is appropriately weighted when evaluating the potential planning obligations necessary to mitigate the full impact of a development. This is particularly important in situations where a viability assessment demonstrates that proposals are unable to fund the full range of infrastructure requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1714

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Gorsuch

I&O_1824
Surely should also consider the Historic Environment/Conservation Areas There is potential conflict of interest in Land Availability Assessment - where is the scrutiny of the land suggested by developers/planning consultants who have their own agendas for suggesting areas for development. Is this contrary to CWaC governance? 

Comment

Representation ID: 1764

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Byrne

I&O_1874
You probably need to understand the availablility of services such as gas, electric and water.  Whilst I realise the approach is to build more facililities like doctors, after a development has taken place, the reality is that they rarely get built.  So, understanding where there is a shortage of doctors, dentists, etc. would be helpful

Comment

Representation ID: 1818

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: mary pownall

I&O_1928
Please also consider the historic environment/heritage /conservation areas as these aren't listed as a criteria above. The land availability assessment document does not seem to have any consideration for whether the land is suitable. there will be conflicts of interesr for people who have suggested land (ie developers). 

Comment

Representation ID: 1873

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Ashton Hayes Parish Council

I&O_1985
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1940

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Parry

I&O_2052
No. There is no consideration of the impact on the infrastructure in terms of: 1) The condition of the existing roads and paths - they are un maintained and some even dangerous in terms of potholes, gulleys and kerbs.  2) The paths to the Station are even deemed "unsafe" by CWAC  3) Roadmarkings are poor, worn away and disregarded, inclusing juntions  4) The roads are not pysically able to take the current volume of traffic in terms of the width of the roads any physical throughput. Just look at when there are neighbouring roadworks, accidents, diversions of even a busy day at Delemere, the roads are snarled up  5) The junction onto the A49 is terribly dangerous with the speed of traffic ecountered 6) Speeding is also already a massive issue in the villiage, even with investment into speed monitoring devices  Flooding is already bad and gets worse year on year. Any substantive increase in hardlandscaping and additional water run off from roofs, soakaways and the like will have further detrimental impact to the surrounding areas The greenbelt is there for a reason and should be respected - urban, suburban and rural sprawl neeeds to cease and re-use brownfield sites 

Comment

Representation ID: 1999

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

I&O_2115
The HBF considers that the Council should ensure that all of their policy requirements are fully justified and evidenced, the proposed evidence is likely to be necessary alongside other documents to justify the policy requirements in the Plan. The Council will also need to ensure that they have considered viability, viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative costs of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the Plan. The Council needs to ensure that policy requirements should be set at a level that takes account of affordable housing and infrastructure needs and allows for the planned development to be deliverable without need for further viability assessment at the decision-making stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 2021

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Stanley

I&O_2140
I believe it is important to look at air quality data for housing to be situated alongside trunk roads.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2049

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2169
The Council should ensure that all of their policy requirements are fully justified and evidenced. MCI broadly agree that the evidence base documents produced so far (listed on the website) and those that are to be prepared forms the right evidence to inform the new local Plan. In addition to the documents prepared to date and those which are still to be produced MCI urge the Council to undertake a comprehensive review of settlements as the Places Background Paper focus on Urban Areas and Key Service Centres only to the detriment of Rural Settlements. Rural settlements such as Moulton form an important part of the settlement hierarchy. The Issues and Options background data highlights that there are many settlements which are of a similar size to the Key Service Centres which are being overlooked due to limited services. These settlements would benefit from growth to support existing and encourage further services, may are located within close proximity to larger Urban Areas and through enhanced transport links sustainability could be enhanced. A comprehensive Settlement review would enable potential opportunities to be identified.

Comment

Representation ID: 2075

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2195
As a number of adult day services for those with disabilities, a study should be included on the impact on this cohort of people of any proposed developments in terms of the services.

Comment

Representation ID: 2260

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Matthew Yeoman

I&O_2383
Protect our green belt please

Comment

Representation ID: 2271

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Manning

I&O_2400
What queries are sought on what the population want? They will want more play areas for children, football fields, skate parks, parks etc.Not more houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 2300

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2429
Protecting green belt and greenfield should be a primary principle. Rural villages of Willaston and Hooton, as they cannot sustain increased housing plans. Protecting green areas/greenfield should be a primary principle and protecting . Green field sites store carbon in soil/hedgerows and trees- building on these means loss of carbon sinks and release of stored carbon. Green field and green belt land is climate change infrastructure. We have a climate emergency, need to reduce carbon emissions and improve biodiversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 2353

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: L M

I&O_2482
Views of residents must be included

Comment

Representation ID: 2415

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2544
In addition to the list of required evidence with which I agree, I recommend including a requirement to include evidence on sustainability and climate change readiness.

Comment

Representation ID: 2556

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2709
Additional evidence should include the LNRS for Cheshire & Warrington and the River Basin Management Plan/local catchment plans for the Weaver Gowy, Lower Mersey and Tidal Dee catchments, which set out key objectives for nature recovery and water management.  Reference should also be made to the emerging Cheshire and Warrington Sustainable & Inclusive Economic Strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 2698

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Birtles

I&O_2853
An overview of demographics for each settlement together with its historical character, tourism and existing population density.

Comment

Representation ID: 2754

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Cooke

I&O_2923
The Land Availablility Assessment includes submissions of suggested available land, including a field I own which I strongly believe has been submitted by a neighbour and local planning consultant trying to progress development of land adjoining mine. I did not make that suggestion and I believe it is unethical and there is a conflict of interest, to base the local plan on this assessment where developers and planning consultants are included as key stakeholders int he process but also can submit to this LAA

Comment

Representation ID: 2825

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_2995
IN1 (General observation) Whilst this appears to be a good dataset to help inform decisions, I question the quality of the dataset - from attendance of a zoom call, and discussion with fellow residents that have attended physical meetings, it's clear that the initial information is based upon a desktop exercide (looking at a map!) with team members having no real awareness of many of those areas and the communities they impact. Whilst I appreciate that more detailed work wthh be undertaken as the process progresses, there is a significant risk (indeed its already an issue) that potential, more relevant sites have been overlooked and will thereform not form part of the ongoing process. I'd urge the planning team to visit every proposed site before any decisions are made, spending a day in each community, looking at existing infrastructure and community facilities limitations, and the ability to improve those in the event of significant population growth for a community, which would be the outcome for a number of the proposed sites.