Comment

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Milnes

I&O_1316
I believe that CWaC should target 750 homes per year. Slower building rates allows time to evaluate arising issues eg: impact on infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 1262

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1367
yes, you have not yet established need according to your introduction

Comment

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 17/09/2025

Respondent: Flintshire County Council

I&O_1420
In response to Question SS1 the Local Planning Authority considers that it is for CWAC to demonstrate whether the 1,914 dwellings per annum can be sustainably accommodated having regard to a technical assessment of constraints and whether it is necessary for delivery to be stepped, with a lower delivery earlier in the Plan period, in terms of Question SS2.

Comment

Representation ID: 1481

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Andrea Quinton

I&O_1589
Yes. Refuse to accept the govt proposals and challenge them until THEY provide a 15 year costed intfrastrcuture plan! 

Comment

Representation ID: 1495

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Clough

I&O_1603
If the council plans to deliver this, the planning permission must address the local roads and infrastructure to be in place before people move in. This is not currently happening.

Comment

Representation ID: 1506

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Glover

I&O_1614
I believe that CWaC should target 500 homes per year, and turn attention to unavailable highly pressured services to support before increasing the local population and adding further strain to Doctors, and schools for example. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1533

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Matt Aubrey

I&O_1641
I support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year.  

Comment

Representation ID: 1615

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Roberta Pomponio

I&O_1725
I would urge caution . Cheshire West and Chester already faces a significant volume of existing housing stock , with slower-than-ideal market absorption in some segments: As of May 2025, the average house price in the borough stands at approximately £258,000 , with first-time buyers paying around £213,000 , both up about 4% year-on-year. Office for National Statistics Housing supply dynamics are mixed—annual transaction levels remain healthy (~4,600 sales as of March 2023) Varbes —but broader insights suggest a market that’s not overheated . National sentiment reflects that homes remaining on the market for more than 100 days have only a 56% chance of completing a sale, while those sold within 25 days succeed 94% of the time Reddit +1 —indicating slow-moving stock can stagnate supply-demand equilibrium. Additional anecdotal reports across the UK point to rising supply and cooling demand in parts of the market. For example, earlier trends showed 65% more properties on the market year-on-year , with demand down 43% , indicating a potential mismatch between supply and appetite Conclusion: While delivery of 1,914 homes annually may reflect long-term needs, there’s a risk of oversupply , particularly if many homes already linger unsold. Without clear evidence of market capacity to absorb new builds at this scale—especially slower-moving or higher-priced stock—a more phased approach may be prudent.

Comment

Representation ID: 1699

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kathleen Watts

I&O_1809
Firstly, my understanding is that CWAC have "accepted", without challenge, the handed down target figure of 1900 new houses annually from government. This is a significant increase from previously and means that CWAC have left themselves open to being unable to refuse applications due to no longer having a 5 year land supply after performing well in this area for a number of years. I find the lack of challenge unbelievable - you are meant to be representing your residents, not just accepting "orders" from those who have no knowledge of your constituency.

Comment

Representation ID: 1721

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Gorsuch

I&O_1831
When this figure was arrived at, what scrutiny was undertaken to see how many empty houses are in the borough and what percentage of new build houses are currently on the market? Consdering you have had a housing supply SURPLUS for many years. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1775

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Byrne

I&O_1885
You have to plan for it, but let's remember that demand isn't linear.  There were a lot of covid babies, so in a few years time, there will be a need for family starter homes.  Being granular about exactly what type of housing is needed will be key

Comment

Representation ID: 1822

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: mary pownall

I&O_1932
How have you arrived at that number? It seems excessive for a rural county when there are already lots of houses on the market/unsold and newly developed. How have you gone from a surplus one day to a housing crisis the next?

Comment

Representation ID: 1980

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

I&O_2096
The HBF notes that due to the housing stock figures being updated in May, the housing need figure has actually increased to 1,928 dwellings per annum and brings the overall total over 15 years to 28,920. The HBF considers that this housing figure will need to be considered to reflect the latest government guidance in relation to the Written Ministerial Statement [1] , the standard methodology and the NPPF. The Council may also need to consider if it is appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure than the standard method indicates to reflect growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment as set out in the NPPF [2] . The HBF considers that the Council will need to consider an appropriate balance of development, to ensure that all of their housing needs are met in terms of types and tenures; locations and markets, and to ensure that the Plan can deliver against its housing requirements. The HBF considers that it will be necessary to gather appropriate evidence including a housing needs assessment and a Viability Assessment to determine what types of homes may be needed and can be delivered in Cheshire West and Chester. The HBF considers this is likely to include a wide range and variety of homes, from homes for first-time buyers, to family homes, to homes to suit the older population. The HBF would encourage the Council to work with the home building industry working in the area to determine the types of homes that are currently being delivered, and where there is demand from home purchasers. The HBF considers that it is appropriate for the Council to plan for the affordable needs of its community, and to ensure that it does this in line with the requirements in the NPPF [1] . This should ensure that any affordable housing requirements are clearly set out, and are evidenced as viable through an assessment, and that flexibility is provided within the policy where viability may be an issue. [1] NPPF December 2024 paragraphs 35, 64-66 [ 1] Building the Homes we need – Written Ministerial Statement 30th July 2024 [2] NPPF December 2024 paragraph 69

Comment

Representation ID: 2011

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Leanne Hatchell

SS 1
I&O_2129
I do not support the housebuilding target of 1,914 homes per year. There are almost 1000 earmarked for sites around Cuddington and Davenham as it is. If we expand at this rate per year we will be cities not villages!!! No doctors, no dentists, roads are falling apart, greenbelt being destroyed....

Comment

Representation ID: 2038

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Aubrey

I&O_2157
I believe that CWaC should target 1000 homes per year.

Comment

Representation ID: 2057

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2177
We consider that the starting point for considering the amount of new housing that should be planned for must be grounded in the most up-to-date government guidance. This includes the Written Ministerial Statement (30 th July 2024), the standard method for calculating local housing need, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024). In particular Paragraph 69 of the NPPF (2024) which states “Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period.” We consider it important that the Council should consider adopting a housing requirement that exceeds the figure derived from the standard method, in order to support strategic objectives related to economic growth or infrastructure investment, as envisaged in the NPPF (2024). Reference (and not duplication) should be made to inform the reader and the community that paragraph 36  of the NPPF (2024) has been taken into consideration in particular parts a) and d) which requires that Local plans are: “a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development” and d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.” The Council should clearly articulate how it intends to bridge the gap between past delivery and future need, particularly in light of the government’s continued emphasis on housing delivery performance through the Housing Delivery Test. Appropriate evidence should be gathered to determine what types of homes may be needed and can be delivered in Cheshire West and Chester. This should include planning for affordable housing needs in line with the requirements of paragraphs 35, 64-66 of the NPPF 2024. Any affordable housing requirements should be clearly set out, there should be a viability assessment to support them and there should be flexibility within the policy where viability may be an issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 2099

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2219
There seems to be no consideration of the number of houses that have recently been built or are in the process of being built such as those in Northwich and Helsby in the calculation of housing numbers required.

Comment

Representation ID: 2166

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Thiemicke

Question SS 1
I&O_2286
I have seen no evidence that that many houses are required in this area. There are no large employers around here, so any new residents are going to have to travel out of the area to work (eg to Manchester or Liverpool), so why not build the houses there in the first place, and leave our green fields for growing food ? Where are all the people that allegedly need these homes currently living anyway ? I don't see many homeless people in the borough, so where is the need ? One of our neighbouring boroughs (Cheshire West) has unanimously (ie all political parties) voted to tell the Government that the numbers are far too high. Why do CWaC not do the same ?

Comment

Representation ID: 2206

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Stanley

I&O_2326
No reason not to plan this, the Council should plan to deliver at least the average number of homes required per year, and preferably more in the first 5-10 years where feasible

Comment

Representation ID: 2231

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: John Harding

I&O_2351
1,914 homes is not an unreasonable number, but the unitary authority should be looking to "ramp up" delivery, backloading the majority of the delivery towards the final half of the plan period.   

Comment

Representation ID: 2277

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Manning

I&O_2406
Yes. The county is too builtup already.

Comment

Representation ID: 2318

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2447
local constraints in Willaston and Hooton cannot do this with sustainability due to above issues including flood risk (esp Birkenhead road which is a huge problem to pass in winter), not good enough infrastructure,exciting congestion/parking/traffic/blocked roads and petitions about this, already too high pressure on schools and healthcare and current green spaces and greenfields help with flood management, biodiversity and village character. Green fields and country walks around these attract many people to the area for local businesses.

Comment

Representation ID: 2433

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2562
Provided the aaumptions behind the number of new houses is clearly defined and also revisited so that the assumption can be tested in future years then, as a starting point , the requirement is valid.

Comment

Representation ID: 2566

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2719
We fully recognise the need for additional housing and we are not opposed to this provided that the new housing is sustainable, including SuDs and other flood risk reduction measures (particularly on green field sites, such that there is a neutral effect on flood risk), meets high standards of water efficiency and the water supply, drainage, sewerage and wastewater treatment infrastructure is developed in tandem and not as an afterthought where retrofitting of infrastructure provision is very expensive and impacts arise while these issues are addressed.    To achieve the latter requirements, there could well be a need to consider a stepped approach to allow time for the infrastructure provision to be delivered in tandem.

Comment

Representation ID: 2617

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Shakeshaft

I&O_2770
I believe that CWaC should target 0 homes per year. As few as possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 2626

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS1
I&O_2779
The increase in housing numbers is meant to be a minimum requirement. Planning for a higher level of delivery will ensure that the plan is robust.

Comment

Representation ID: 2660

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Cholmondeley Estate

Agent: Savills (L & P) Ltd

I&O_2813
No. The Issues and Options draft sets out that the Council’s policy approach is to deliver a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year over the plan period. To ensure that the emerging local plan is consistent with national policy, the Council should use the Standard Method to calculate the local housing need (LHN) figure. The new method to calculate housing need uses housing stock as the starting point rather than population projection as it was felt that housing stock provides a better baseline because it “ provides a stable and predictable baseline  that ensures all areas, as a minimum, are contributing a share of the national total that is  proportionate to the size of their current housing market ”1. Savills notes that the most recent housing need figure for Cheshire West and Chester is actually 1,928 dpa as of May 2025 affordability ratios and not the figure of 1,914 dpa as referenced within the Issues and Options consultation material. In response to question SS1, it is strongly recommended that the new Local Plan should  support the delivery of 1,928 homes per year as a minimum . The requirement for the new Local Plan to meet the Standard Method figure is clearly established in the NPPF and is the necessary approach that must be taken to ensure that the plan is consistent with national policy. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the national policy requirement is for Local Plans to adopt the Standard Method figure as a minimum . Savills recommends that the Council should take an ambitious approach and aim to exceed the minimum housing delivery indicated by the Standard Method, in order to support sustainable growth. To tackle the national housing crisis, the Standard Method for calculating local housing need was reformed in December 2024 (in conjunction with an updated NPPF). The revised Standard Method was revised to reflect the Labour Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes in the next five years from 2024 to 2029 (or 300,000 dwellings per annum). The NPPF states that to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing needs assessment, conducted using the Standard Method, as set out in the PPG. It should be noted that this housing need figure is a minimum – it is an unconstrainted ‘policy off’ assessment of the minimum number of homes needed in an area. Assessing housing need is the first step in deciding how many homes to plan for. However, it does not directly translate to the actual housing requirement. The housing requirement is a “policy on” figure. It considers local factors, policies, and constraints to determine whether the unconstrained housing need figure can be delivered in full. However, it is the Government’s clear intention that the identified housing need in an area should be met in full. The housing requirement can also exceed the minimum housing need figure to account for circumstances which include (but are not limited to) significant infrastructure or economic investment, large scale regeneration, or a new town development. The PPG2 clarifies this by stating that “ the standard method for calculating local housing need  provides a minimum number of homes to be planned for. Authorities should use the standard method  as the starting point when preparing the housing requirement in their plan ”. (Our emphasis). To ensure choice and competition in the market for land, and to also consider the chance that some allocations may not be deliverable, a buffer to the housing requirement should be applied to plan making to ensure sufficient dwellings are allocated to meet development needs. Therefore, to ensure the emerging local plan is consistent with national policy, the housing requirement should utilise the Standard Method, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) as the starting point3.   1 MHCLG, Guidance on housing and economic needs assessment (February 2025), paragraph 005 2 NPPG, 2024, Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 68-001-20241212 3 National Planning Policy Framework, December 2025, Paragraph 62

Comment

Representation ID: 2677

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: David Molyneaux

5.0 Housing Needs
I&O_2830
 The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. Add hundreds of extra vehicles from large building projects and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk.GP Practices and Schools Are Full. There is the added issue of increased air and light pollution. Flood risk is a factor not to be dismissed. Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Greenbelt land acts as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on greenbelt means water runs off faster overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2751

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Smith

SS1
I&O_2917
SS1: The Central Government increased target is not based on a local housing needs assessment in the Borough. Does Cheshire West need this number of additional homes to meet the needs of the community and anticipated employment requirements?

Comment

Representation ID: 2764

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Cooke

I&O_2933
The county had a surplus. There is no local requirement for this amount of homes in our county. What about all the current homes on the market not being sold