Comment

Representation ID: 2823

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Eddleston

SS1
I&O_2993
There are a number of reasons why I do not think this level of development is suitable. Firstly, Cheshire is an area with a large proportion of high quality agricultural land which I believe needs to be preserved to ensure food production capabilities for future generations. Secondly, the impact on the current infrastructure is far too great. The strain on the road network is far too apparent with large numbers of people having to rely on their cars with no other viable options. GP and dental surgeries are also struggling . I do see there is a need for housing but would argue not at this level.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2935

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Castle Green Homes

I&O_3109
The Council should use the latest housing stock figures to calculate its minimum housing requirement.  The latest published figures indicate a housing need of 1,928dpa.  The Council is currently applying a 5% buffer to its housing requirement for the purposes of reporting its five-year housing land supply as delivery has fallen between 95-85% of requirement over three years (Housing Land Monitor Summary Report, 2024).  It also reports unaffordability of housing as a key issue at Section 5.3 of the Issue and Options Local Plan.  The Government has been clear within the NPPF that the supply of homes must be significantly boosted.  Council should therefore take an ambitious and proactive approach towards tackling housing need and affordability and plan to deliver in excess of its minimum housing requirement in order to meet the Vision of Cheshire West and Chester as a good place to live.

Comment

Representation ID: 2950

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Nick Ratcliffe

Agent: Richard Moffat

I&O_3124
The Council should ensure that sufficient land is allocated to provide sustainable village extensions  

Comment

Representation ID: 3032

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Beryl Prior

I&O_3206
We do not have the infrastructure in Winsford to support this level of housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 3040

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3214
Yes — there are significant reasons why the Council should not automatically plan for delivering a minimum of 1,914 homes per year: 1. Unrealistic and undeliverable in practice The figure of 1,914 dwellings per annum reflects a minimum standard method calculation , but it does not take account of local constraints such as Green Belt coverage, environmental protections, and infrastructure capacity. The December 2024 NPPF explicitly states that Green Belt boundaries should not be altered simply to meet housing targets. Therefore, applying 1,914 homes per year regardless of constraints risks making the plan unsound. 2. Conflict with environmental limits Delivering this scale of growth would inevitably require large-scale release of Green Belt land and Best and Most Versatile farmland. This directly conflicts with the principles of sustainable development and the NPPF’s “golden rules.” It also risks negative impacts on European protected sites, as flagged in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening (June 2025) , which highlights cumulative pressures in the Northwich/Weaverham/Acton Bridge area. 3. Infrastructure capacity limits Existing infrastructure (schools, GP surgeries, roads, rail, utilities) in many parts of the borough is already under strain. Planning for 1,914 homes per year without a realistic infrastructure-first delivery plan would exacerbate congestion, undermine local services, and reduce quality of life. In particular, rural settlements such as Weaverham cannot absorb significant new allocations without unacceptable impacts on transport and community infrastructure. 4. Demographic and economic evidence Population and household projections do not in themselves justify housing growth at this scale. The borough must balance need with deliverability, environmental capacity, and infrastructure provision. A lower, more realistic housing requirement is more consistent with sustainable development and long-term community wellbeing. Conclusion: The Council should not simply plan for a minimum of 1,914 homes per year. Instead, the housing requirement should be set at a level that reflects local constraints — including Green Belt, biodiversity, flood risk, and infrastructure capacity — in line with the December 2024 NPPF. A figure below 1,914 may be necessary to produce a plan that is legally sound, environmentally sustainable, and deliverable in practice.

Comment

Representation ID: 3086

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: National Highways

I&O_3260
We are supportive of this proposed spatial strategy approach, as it adheres to both the NPPF policies regarding development provisions and will also support government-mandated housing requirements for the borough. Policy SS1: Housing Needs The presented figures will equate to a total of 28,710 new homes within the 15-year Local Plan period. We recommend that the Council work with National Highways to identify the potential impact of both individual sites where relevant in proximity to the SRN, and the cumulative impact of the development on the SRN across the Local Plan period. This will enable early identification of any areas of the SRN which may be put under undue stress through the development of new homes within the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 3212

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Rhys Jones

I&O_3386
Most local hospitals in the area are already stretched beyond capacity with patients waiting days in A&E and being nursed in corridors. Existing local residents cannot get a GP appointment or register with an NHS dentist. Local roads are already gridlocked at peak times. Too many houses have already been built without bolstering the necessary infrastructure. I cannot see how an additional 4000-5000 people a year can realistically be accommodated. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3229

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3403
Yes - government policy, which I completely disagree with - may change, as may the government. The policy is actually naive in the extreme, and for some reason assumes that building lots more houses will make them affordable to people. That's not going to be the case - all this will do it make developers lots of moeny, ruin signifcant parts of the Cheshire contryside, and put massive new strainson already creaking/crumbling rural infrstructure. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3293

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3467
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: 3381

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

Agent: Gary Halman Land and Planning Limited

I&O_3555
No. The Plan should meet local housing needs, as calculated by the 2024 Standard Method, in full.

Comment

Representation ID: 3385

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3559
This is a government target moving forward but account should be taken of how much development there has been in certain areas over recent years which is already adding to congestion (and therefore reduced air quality), pressure on services/infrastructure (schools/health provision etc) and loss of green spaces. The new homes should be built through reclamation of unused/derelict buildings and use of brownfield sites NOT the further sacrifice of green spaces. Concreting over our countryside and green spaces  contributes to potential flood risk and is harmful to residents physical and mental well being

Comment

Representation ID: 3461

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_3635
SS1 Based on identified needs, this seems appropriate. However, there needs to be a strategic plan that looks at where those homes will be built and when. Better to build the entiry of a community's allocation in a relatively short period (1-3 years) and undertaken necessary infrastructure/community service upgrates during that period, rather than adding 1/15 of the allocation every year for 15 years, which will result in costly, piecemeal updates in the community

Comment

Representation ID: 3482

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs S Watson

I&O_3656
My understanding is that CWAC has accepted, without challenge, the government’s target of 1,900 new houses annually. This is a major increase from previous levels and risks leaving CWAC without a 5-year land supply, despite strong past performance. I find it unacceptable that this figure has not been challenged. CWAC is meant to represent its residents, not simply accept directives from those unfamiliar with local circumstances.

Comment

Representation ID: 3531

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3705
Yes green belt shoud be protected - developers are already trying to convince CW&C Planning that some areas of green belt are grey belt. They are not, they are green belt and shoudl be protected. The government need reminding that not all counties and areas are the same. Build on brownfields, extend the cities and towns. Most local services centres are not services centres at all. They are villages and should be renamed. There are very little services in these so called local services centres. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3571

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Weatherup

I&O_3745
housing demand in the area is increasing;however, the use of green belt land should not be considered.  Developement for the housing needs in each area requires to be considered on land that can be re-developed to improve the objectives of the SS 1

Comment

Representation ID: 3912

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4094
It is not clear that the housing number includes individual flats. It is essential these are in the count.  Majro attention needs to be paid to social housing, given the lack of stock now and the high need. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3939

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Proctor

I&O_4121
Account should be taken of job creation in the borough. Does it match the planned housing growth? We should not be allocating land for family homes if there are not new jobs being provided too.

Comment

Representation ID: 4030

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4238
Little Leigh Parish Council accepts, in principle, that this is the figure emerging for CWAC from the formulae in the new NPPF. However, even the existing targets have proved difficult to hit; and limited capacity in the construction sector and the likely market absorption rate for new properties may well make it difficult to achieve this pace of development, particularly in the early years of the new Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4056

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Ditchfield

I&O_4264
Where are all the extra people living in these new proposed homes coming from and where will they be working? Looking at housing selling sites, there doesn't appear to be much of a shortage of private housing stock within the area. Cheshire as a whole has undetaken a huge number of house building projects over the last few years. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4062

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Hair

I&O_4270
This is too many houses, the actual problem is affordability, not supply of new houses

Comment

Representation ID: 4300

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: David Rudd

I&O_4529
No provided it is sustainable and that require infrastructure is put in at the same time as the development and preferably before. Infrastructure cannot be left till after the developments 

Comment

Representation ID: 4404

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Conway

SS1
I&O_4636
We have no reason to think 1914 homes is unreasonable

Comment

Representation ID: 4440

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4685
yes - housing numbers are not not based on need  (figures are arbitary) we should be able to push back to central government with correct need    

Comment

Representation ID: 4511

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Amanda Vernon

Agent: Savills (L & P) Ltd

I&O_4789
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. It must be noted that the current adopted Local Plan’s housing requirement is 1,100 dwellings per annum, which is significantly below the new Standard Method of 1,928 dwellings per annum. 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. It should be noted that this housing need figure is a minimum – it is a without constraints ‘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. 1 MHCLG, Guidance on housing and economic needs assessment (February 2025), paragraph 005

Comment

Representation ID: 4611

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: William Barry

I&O_4897
The council should be looking at freeing up houses that are either Air BnB, or unoccupied by changes to council tax to drive use up.  Encourage take up of existing and lapsed planning permissions to address infill. Require that all private landlords are registered with CWaC to drive up letting standards and provide additioanl accomodation. Cap the level of rents that can be asked by private landlords, to improve affordability in the rental sector. Stop selling off social housing.    Only then should the approach to delivering the net target number of new homes be deteermined when the current houseing stock is better utilised.

Comment

Representation ID: 4649

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Barry

I&O_4945
SS1 I suggest the Council starts by looking at houses not in occupation, to quickly try to bring these into occupation. Is there a known figure for this? Is the Council aware of the number of second home owners who live in the authority, and whether their Cheshire homes are their primary, or secondary, residence? Is there potential here for freeing up accommodation?

Comment

Representation ID: 4703

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Cathy Thiemicke

Q SS 1
I&O_5012
Yes. We don't actually need these houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 4751

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Holden

I&O_5079
Some of the land identified in the areas that I am familiar with, particularly around Frodsham (specifically the land close to townfield lane) would have a hugley negative impact on the local environment and ecology and severely impact the wellbeing of the thousands who live close to that. I fear that this target is forcing too much building too fast, although I absolutely agree some new housing is needed, and a lot of improvements to infrastructure

Comment

Representation ID: 4827

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heat Pumps and Engineering Directors' Pension Fund

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5177
There is no reason the Council should not plan to deliver a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year. Planning for this level of growth is necessary to address affordability pressures, support economic development, and ensure a steady supply of housing land across the borough. A proactive response will help maintain a five-year housing land supply and ensure the Local Plan is found sound at examination.

Comment

Representation ID: 4849

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: The Bostock Estate

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5199
There is no reason the Council should not plan to deliver a minimum of 1,914 new homes each year. Planning for this level of growth is necessary to address affordability pressures, support economic development, and ensure a steady supply of housing land across the borough. A proactive response will help maintain a five-year housing land supply and ensure the Local Plan is found sound at examination.