Comment

Representation ID: 23

Received: 07/07/2025

Respondent: Chris Jackson

I&O_26
SS1  The council could argue that a more realistc number should be aimed for -meet half way. There were reasons why the council agreed the leesser number in the first place so their voice shoulkd be heard. A future change of government may alter this decison .

Comment

Representation ID: 67

Received: 08/07/2025

Respondent: Via Sty

I&O_72
Consideration should be given to developlent in neighbouring counties when it comes to border areas.  Malpas is closer to Whitchurch in Shropshire than it is to any other large towns in Cheshire, and therefore our community is served by the ameneties of Shropshire rather than Cheshire.  Therefore, people in Malpas also benefit from the development of places like Whitchurch over the border. Housing development on the Cheshire side of the border close to Whitchurch is less necessary, as we are served by the new housing developments in that town.  Cheshire West should therefore prioritise housing developments on brownfield sites closer to large settlements away from the Shropshire border, which is already benefitting from developments in the neighbouring county. 

Comment

Representation ID: 99

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Cockburn

Housing delivery
I&O_121
The answer is a qualified yes depending on whether the Council can also build the necessary road infrastructure, additional schools, shops and community amenities in the designated areas.  Urban areas such as Winsford have consistently been left behind in being provided with schools, shops and community amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 124

Received: 14/07/2025

Respondent: Mike Mather

I&O_146
Please do but in a sustainable and joined up way. As a Northwich resident I get frustrated that our area takes the largest burden and the negatives that come with it, whereas South Cheshire gets very little development. Another bad example is the centre of our town has been filled with over 55's apartments and many still stand empty. We need to attract well paid young couples for the twons service industry to develop. How can the town develop and thrive when it's filled with people who don't really use the services? Hopefully the extra £5M per year compounded annually will not be wasted.

Comment

Representation ID: 260

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Rimmer

I&O_290
Look at local population changes and demographics more closely and stop building 'shared ownership' which do not help local young families get on the property market.

Comment

Representation ID: 270

Received: 20/07/2025

Respondent: Steven Cockburn

NA
I&O_300
There are several compelling reasons why the Council should reconsider or qualify the target of delivering a minimum of 1,914 new homes annually. While housing need is important, this figure must be balanced against infrastructure capacity, environmental sustainability, and community wellbeing. Delivering nearly 2,000 homes per year without guaranteed, upfront infrastructure investment will: Overwhelm local schools, GP surgeries, and hospitals. Exacerbate traffic congestion and public transport shortfalls. Stretch utilities and digital infrastructure beyond safe limits. Planning for housing without planning for infrastructure is irresponsible.   The housing market in Cheshire West and Chester — particularly in towns like Winsford — may not be able to absorb this volume of new homes annually without: Depressing house prices and undermining existing communities. Creating unsold or under-occupied developments. Encouraging speculative, low-quality building. Targets must reflect realistic delivery rates and local demand, not just theoretical need. Communities are already expressing deep concern about the scale and pace of development. Pushing ahead with a rigid housing target risks: Alienating residents and undermining trust in the planning process. Ignoring the principles of localism and neighbourhood planning. Creating social fragmentation in areas that lack the services to support rapid population growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 306

Received: 21/07/2025

Respondent: Tim Ashcroft

I&O_337
The target is fine - it is how can it be maintained and still be delivering on all its other aspirations and not sacrficing them i.e. it needs really affordable housing etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 386

Received: 26/07/2025

Respondent: Paul Holden

I&O_461
No reason not to deliver provided the developments are utilising old industrial land.  We have plenty.   Please protect our green field spaces or we will destroy the very special characteristics that Cheshire enjoys.

Comment

Representation ID: 419

Received: 27/07/2025

Respondent: Clare Ballantyne Roberts

I&O_499
There seem to be many houses for sale, constantly. Has the need for this amount of new houses been properly ascertained, or is it an abritary request from central government? I do not know the answer to this question, but I do wonder, from looking around me.

Comment

Representation ID: 444

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Matt Bill

I&O_527
Continually building in the present manner is not sustainable. Eventually the country will be covered in buildings. This is not good for anyone. We need to think differently. Make better use of unused buildings and old sites. And only build what is needed, rather than what government tells us what is needed. Look at more high rise in cities, building underground, floating villages off shore, etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 675

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Hughes

I&O_761
No the council should at least meet this, if not exceed

Comment

Representation ID: 766

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Elaine Fenech

I&O_870
I believe that CWaC should target 0 homes per year. Infrastructure already under pressure

Comment

Representation ID: 779

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Dave Bell

I&O_883
I believe that CWaC should target 0 homes per year.

Comment

Representation ID: 793

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Miss Hilary Belshaw

I&O_897
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year.

Comment

Representation ID: 803

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Janet Gormley

I&O_907
I believe that CWaC should target 0 homes per year. Once this beautiful countryside is gone, it’s GONE! Yes build on brown areas and regent those, not concrete over beautiful wild animal filled land for our next generations to enjoy  

Comment

Representation ID: 822

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Stephen Allen-Gurr

I&O_926
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year. Doctors, dentist surgerys and road connectivity ashould first be built before the new houses  

Comment

Representation ID: 838

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Andrew Oliver

I&O_942
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year. Where are the extra services to support the never ending quest for house building?

Comment

Representation ID: 854

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Simon Ward

I&O_958
I believe that CWaC should target 1000 homes per year.  

Comment

Representation ID: 876

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Angela Capstick

I&O_980
I believe that CWaC should target 700 homes per year. this will allow for infrastructure to be built alongside the new development, it will avoid large scale developments being located in non suitable locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 894

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Jill Darlington

I&O_998
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year. Ensure all new developments are on brown fields sites or sites previously under development.

Comment

Representation ID: 911

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Allan Aston

I&O_1015
I believe that CWaC should target 1000 homes per year.

Comment

Representation ID: 925

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Vicky Goodall

I&O_1029
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year. Brownfield sites should be prioritised for new build homes. Then areas surrounding large towns should be the second priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 936

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Dee Rowan

I&O_1040
I believe that CWaC should target 0 homes per year. There's enough houses ! They just need to be used properly! Stop building!

Comment

Representation ID: 973

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Smith

I&O_1077
No but they need to be built in the right place, with the correct infrastructure being sorted first. I.E. not built in a area where the road network is at full capacity already. Schools are full, and the doctors and dentists have no more capacity.

Comment

Representation ID: 998

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Shaun Roche

I&O_1103
I believe that CWaC should target 100 homes per year.

Comment

Representation ID: 1009

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Christian

I&O_1114
I believe that CWaC should target 500 homes per year.

Comment

Representation ID: 1022

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Metcalfe

I&O_1127
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year. The number of school places, GP's, hospital admissions etc should also be calculated based upon the number of homes. The developers of the land should be made to pay a significant % of the above ongoing and upfront cost. More so if they are building on greenbelt.

Comment

Representation ID: 1045

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Turner

I&O_1150
Yes no infrastructure to support it e.g. drainage, schools, doctors, dentists, etc

Comment

Representation ID: 1064

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Jenny Day

I&O_1169
I believe that CWaC should target 500 homes per year. Trying to pack in this many new homes per year means there will be a rush to secure sites to build on which will lead to green areas being targeted.

Comment

Representation ID: 1122

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Kopec

SS 1
I&O_1227
Housing Needs I believe that CWaC should target 1000 homes per year.