Comment

Representation ID: 13753

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ben Priestley

I&O_14273
Option A – Retain the Green Belt Once the green belt is gone - it is gone.  Open space, green fields and agriculture is a central element of Cheshire’s characteristics and should be maintained and ring fenced.  Self sufficiency through agriculture is vital.  Biodiversity (birds and wildlife together with trees and hedgerows etc) and air quality is massively enhanced by the maintenance of the existing greenbelt and contributes to making Cheshire West and desirable place to live.  People want to come to Cheshire to visit or live because it is green and pleasant and this is because of the greenbelt belt protection. This should not be removed when we have many other equally viable options.  It should not be eaten in to and housing can be and should be provided outside of the designated greenbelt in areas that are already partly urban / brownfield as seen with Winnington village.  The greenbelt is well used by cyclists and ramblers and again add to the quality of life of residents in Cheshire West having the protected space and separation between conurbations which as given the area its character and appeal for centuries. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13755

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Lowe

I&O_14275
my choice is Option A - Retain the green belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13765

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Hosker

I&O_14285
I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt. This is the only option that protects communities, prevents urban sprawl, and supports the regeneration of existing urban areas.
Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 13774

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Costelloe

I&O_14294
Option A - RETAIN GREEN BELT  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13778

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ann Garner-Smith

I&O_14298
My choice regarding this is option A - retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13779

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Pauline Freeman

I&O_14299
Option A  Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13815

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Julia Hiscock

I&O_14335
I believe the Council should choose Option A (Retain the Green Belt) . I do not support Options B or C, because both would mean releasing Green Belt land in and around Frodsham, including the fields next to Hob Hey Wood. Even though Hob Hey itself is protected, the surrounding fields are also important. They provide a natural buffer for the wood, support wildlife, and give the place its sense of peace. Building on them would destroy all of that and go against the Local Plan’s stated aim of protecting the environment and Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13824

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Webster

I&O_14344
Based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number of new houses to the Cuddington area and east of Delamere Park my vote and objection would be as follows: My preferred option is Option A - to retain the area as is, promote the green belt land for agricultural and natural use. Ultimately we have to have to be a self sufficient food source in the UK. If building is absolutely essential under national plans then I would elect Option B - limiting the builds to 500 houses and in line with the old local and neighbourhood development plans. Option C is NOT acceptable as there are limited amenities. There is limited public transport in this area.  Delamere Park has a weekly bus, there are hourly buses from Cuddington to Northwich, trains are only 1 per hour from Cuddington station and take 1hour and 7 minutes to get to Manchester, A and B roads are of poor quality currently. Adding more traffic would create further problems. There are no doctors in the area; our surgery was closed two years ago and we have to travel to Northwich or Weaverham. There are no secondary schools locally. Local employment is mainly agricultural, which will reduce if land is built on.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13825

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Jennifer Dandy

I&O_14345
I would like to answer questionSS11 and my choice is Option A which is  Retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13826

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Waveney Oakley

I&O_14346
local plan Cuddington Sandiway and Delamere Park  I would like to add my support for retaining the Green Belt- Option 1. Why? It’s green belt prime agricultural land which is still used as such. No transport alternative to the family car. The current population which has increased considerably with 3 new housing estates in the last 12?years relies on one train an hour which is overcrowded now and uses ancient unreliable rolling stock . Transport links and quality of life are why people move . We do not have the first and will lose the second becoming another overcrowded suburb of Greater Northwich like Hartford. Please look at brownfield sites and transport issues as well as impact on environment and loss of good agricultural land .

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13865

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Martin

I&O_14385
The  proposed options are too extreme and there should be a balance with some limited Green Belt development in an appropriate location , following the original local plan with some sustainable transport consideration .

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13881

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Catherall

I&O_14401
My preferred option is Option A - to retain the area as is, promote the green belt land for agricultural and natural use. Ultimately we have to be a self sufficient food source in the UK. If building is absolutely essential under national plans then I would elect Option B - limiting the builds to 500 houses and in line with the old local and neighbourhood development plans. Option C is NOT acceptable as there are limited amenities. There is limited public transport in this area.  Delamere Park has a weekly bus, there are hourly buses from Cuddington to Northwich, trains are only 1 per hour from Cuddington station and take 1hour and 7 minutes to get to Manchester, A and B roads are of poor quality currently. Adding more traffic would create further problems. There are no doctors in the area; our surgery was closed two years ago and we have to travel to Northwich or Weaverham. There are no secondary schools locally. Local employment is mainly agricultural, which will reduce if land is built on.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13886

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Beamson

I&O_14406
I am writing to comment on SS8 spatial strategy options, especially with regard to Delamere Park. My preference is for Option A - Retain the Green Belt. The roads and minor lanes surrounding Delamere Park are not compatible with the increased traffic they would bear as a result of housing in the proposed development areas CUD04 and CUD05. They are inadequate for the existing traffic and unsafe for vulnerable road users such as walkers, runners, horse riders and cyclists, and would only become more so if CUD04 and CUD05 were used for housing developments. In general, these roads are narrow and winding with sharp bends, high hedges, blind summits and blind junctions. I cycle them and regularly encounter problems due to fast vehicles passing close on narrow roads. The occupants of houses on CUD04 and CUD05 would want to use these roads to access shops and facilities in the surrounding area which would compound the already difficult traffic situation.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13889

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kat Stahl

I&O_14409
I would like to select Option A: retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13891

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Crookham

I&O_14411
I would like to choose 'Option A : Retain the Green Belt' . My reasons for this are : I'm a resident at Wood View.  These buildings were specifically built for the purpose of housing families that have a member who is unwell.  I suffer from the  condition Muscular Dystrophy and am fully wheelchair bound. My bungalow suits my needs and suits me well.  Due to my condition I'm unable to carry out everyday tasks and this at certain times of the year affects my Mental Health.  The view from my front window is beautiful.   There's a working farm, the wildlife and the different sunsets,  sunrises and lovely aspects to look out at every day.  The thought of looking out at an estate of houses on my doorstep makes me very anxious and nervous. Another concern is the lack of parking in the village.  Numerous cars park with 2 wheels on the path which forces me onto the road so then I'm a hazard to drivers and to myself.  There are also a lot of council hedges and trees that are overgrown which again force me into the road.  Over the years the maintenance of the village has deteriorated due to cut backs.  Adding additional housing will only have a detrimental effect on the maintenance of the roads and paths around the village. Also  the infrastructure for such a small village simply couldn't take any more houses.  I use public transport on a regular basis.  The buses have recently had cut backs and the service is very unreliable.    Weaverham is a small, pretty village with a lovely community.   It would spoil it to have the extra volume of houses and from a personal point of view would encroach on my life and have a big impact on it. I would be greatful if you would please consider these points from me as I know there are other residents with the same or similar concerns.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13892

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mungo Dalglish

I&O_14412
I am profoundly concerned by the current proposal’s threat to local green belt land in a county (and country) in which woodland, green space, and wildlife habitat are massively underserved.  In Question SS 11 I would like to select Option A: retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13899

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Cowling

I&O_14419
With regards to the above consultation, I, together with the other occupants in my home in Cuddington feel that fundamentally, Cuddington and Sandiway is unable to accommodate any further dwellings within its boundaries.   Reasoning: On numerous occasions we have been unable to obtain GP appointments (for ages 72, 42 and 12) - the local GP surgery in the village was closed some years ago - we have to try Kingsmead or Danebridge (Northwich) My 12 year old daughter has to stand on the bus on the way to Weaverham High School due to lack of seating capacity The addition of other local housing developments over recent years in Cuddington and Sandiway and nearby areas have resulted in worsening congestion and stretching of local infrastructure - trains are not frequent enough, do not have enough capacity, regularly cancelled, bus network services not frequent enough/capacity, additional large number of new vehicles on roads expected, together with new junctions, crossings etc to grind roads to a halt plus add to dangers for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians (in addition to the scourge of potholes which I have punctured my own bike tyres) By way of example - the addition of all the new dwellings in nearby Hartford has reduced the local roads to a standstill at key times of the day, the junction at the old yogurt factory on the A49 continues to fail regularly along with the recent issues at the junction of the White Barn - exacerbating existing congestion and resulting in delays getting to work and school - further more, the A556 and A49 support the M56 and M6 and regularly see significant increases in traffic volumes when there are problems on those major motorways At the recent consultation event with D Wilson and Redrow, I was informed by Redrow that the A56/A556 would likely need more pedestrian crossings, a 30mph limit and further traffic lights/junctions - if that goes ahead the village will need a new bypass The developers themselves had no proposals for infrastructure or services - they were not interested as they said they wait for the council to set the requirements for such issues (S106?) - suitable improvements in these areas (transport, GP surgeries, social care, education etc) should surely be a requirement of further development across CWAC. Kingsmead (Northwich) is a good example of a development that included additional school, nursery, GP, pharmacy, for example, but still added significantly to congestion into and out of northwich. Further developments will increase problems for the community - please see the reasonings for objections raised by residents to planning applications Ref:  25/02111/FUL and  25/02017/FUL for additional evidence With regards to local services we also have concerns for the impact of further housing development on the Joshua Tree and Petty Pool, as well as air quality, agricultural land and biodiversity that needs to be protected for future generations. With regards to housing types - there are plenty of 'first time buyer' homes available currently (see rightmove) and developers seem to totally neglect the need for bungalows/supported accommodation for an increasingly elderly population Comments regarding Options A, B and C: We strongly object to Option C. Of options A and B, under the current situation and proposals, with lack of infrastructure and services to support the current inhabitants, ultimately no further expansion of dwellings would be suitable or sustainable Greenbelt/greenfield and agricultural land should be retained - to maintain biodiversity and food security for the nation, not just now, but for future generations We believe that brownfield / industrial / commercial sites with the necessary upgraded and improved local infrastructure and services with increased quality and capacity (taking into account above concerns) should be the only sites considered for any development

Comment

Representation ID: 13907

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Kerry Parr

I&O_14427
Specifically section SS11 – Housing needs and the greenbelt The proposal is to build 500 new houses in Tarvin on three different sites, TARV01, TARV02, and TARV03. In a village over just over 1000 existing homes, this amount is hugely excessive, increasing the number of homes by almost 50%. This number of homes will have a severe adverse effect on a village, which is already struggling to support the local community with services and infrastructure such as doctors, schools, parking, provision for young people and the ongoing challenges of congestion on the A51 towards Chester.   There are already plans to develop the site at TAR02, with just 60 houses. If increased housing is required, the site at TARV02 is much more appropriate than the sites at TARV01 and 03. If any additional housing needs to be built, we should only adopt Option A for Tarvin. These sites sit on existing Greenbelt, and there have been no exceptional circumstances presented as to how building on TARV01 and TARV03 if justified.     Specific Objections   Access to the development site at TARV03 : there are no safe access points to any potential development of the site at TARV03. This is been proven in previous consultations. The only access points would be via Crossfields, and even then, there is no clear way to access the fields. Any access from Crossfields would involve demolishing a property and then having to cross Townfield Lane, which is a private road, and access rights would need to be sought from the owner. Increased traffic on Crossfields and Hockenhull Lane would create a danger to pedestrians. They are already limited to 20mph, due to the proximity to the primary school, community centre and playing fields. Greenbelt : development on all sites means developing on Greenbelt. There are no exceptional circumstances presented to support the development of housing on sites TARV01 and TARV03. Maintaining a village greenspace/heritage: the very essence of a village is the open greenspace that exists. Development on TARV03 would take the last remining greenspace which exists with the boundaries of the A54 and the A51. It will also destroy the last ancient lane in Tarvin, Townfield Lane. Traffic Congestion: it is assumed that the residents in the new housing will not be working in Tarvin as there is very little employment for local people in the village. They will therefore need to commute to their place of work. The congestion on the A51 is unacceptable as it is, even after the widening work at Stamford Bridge in 2019, Increased homes in Tarvin, Kelsall and Tarporley will only compound this issue, leading to more congestion and delays, There is no provision in the Local plan as to how this will be mitigated, Medical facilities: as a resident of Tarvin, it is already extremely difficult to get a medical appointment, with the provision at the local health centre not fit for purpose for the size of the existing community. And an increase in population of 50% will make this situation even worse. There is no provision in the Local plan as to how this issue will be mitigated.   In summary, whilst it was accepted in the Neighborhood Plan in 2019, that more housing development will take place in Tarvin, a target of 500 new homes is excessive, unrealistic and will destroy the very fabric of the village, creating additional challenges that have not been mitigated. However, of development does need to take place, the most appropriate area would be TARV02, where there is already plans for housing to be built.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13926

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Reeder

I&O_14446
email to answer question SS.11 of the protection of the Green Belt We wish to protect and retain all Green Belt areas  Whilst we understand the need for housing why can't you build on all the available brown sites first?.... this is a small hamlet where people know and support each other and any major building would destroy that network leaving us isolated once again  Building a vast amount of houses will cause stress on an already underfunded and overstressed health service schools GP's dentists etc 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13930

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sol Jackson

I&O_14450
I’m writing as a young adult from Delamere Park, and this is the first time I’ve got involved in something like this. I want to make it clear that I strongly support  Option A: Retain the Green Belt .   Our villages are really special, and it would be a huge loss if they were allowed to merge together and lose the unique character that makes them so important to the people who live here. The countryside around us is part of what makes this area worth living in — once it is built on, it is gone forever and can never be replaced.   I remember that a new housing estate was built on the old yoghurt factory site in Cuddington just after we moved here, so our area has already made a big contribution to new housing. Before any more land is taken away,  all brownfield and unused sites should be properly considered first . Taking agricultural land or Green Belt land when other options exist would be irresponsible and short-sighted.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13938

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Val Godfrey

I&O_14458
My comments on the Spatial Strategy Options at SS5 are as follows I would support Option A to retain the Green Belt I value and want to retain the Green Belt because it ensures separation between our villages and prevents them joining + appearing as an urban sprawl. It provides space for wildlife and enhances the natural environment and the rural characteristics of our area. It helps to Improves air quality and the open spaces offer opportunities for recreation , improving mental health and well-being.  I know it’s under pressure but the concept is worth robust defence. As an alternative I would support Option B - the status quo. SS14 I feel Option A is an appropriate spacial strategy for the new local Plan. Option C sustainable transport corridors is in conflict with A and B. It appears to envisage releasing land from the Green Belt which I would oppose - the option is predicated on intrusion into or removal from the Green Belt, + making use of brownfield land opportunities around stations.  Cuddington Station is situated at a busy road junction with no obvious brownfield land, a small car park and is not served by a bus route.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13944

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Plant

I&O_14464
My preference is for Option B, in following the current local plan level of distribution and development. Cuddington & Sandiway is not suitable as a potential growth area of between 500 and 1500 new homes.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 13946

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Hodge

I&O_14466
A -Retain The Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13965

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Gwyther

I&O_14485
Option A - Retain the Green Belt  I oppose the build due to the following: Adding to traffic congestion which is already riduclous. Loss of green space for Lache Ward residents. Impact on wildlife which has already been impacted by current developments. Building on a flood plain which has already caused issues due to the current development Build on brown sites instead.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13967

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Doreen De Cani

I&O_14487
Re Housing needs and Green belt with particular reference to Issue S11   Our preferred option is option B   To follow current local plan level and distribution of development.

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 13970

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Forest Road)

Agent: Carden Group

I&O_14490


Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 13974

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Sutton

I&O_14494
My response to question SS 11 is:   Option A - Retain the Green Belt   It’s about time policy makers began to put our environment first.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13975

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Hampson

I&O_14495
I am writing to put forward my objections to the proposed planning in the Cuddington/ Sandiway area as outlined at the meeting chaired by Chairman of the Council, Gillian Edwards at Delamere  Park 27 August. There are several areas that have been outlined and are a cause of concern. The area stretching from Delamere Park to the A49 is that which I shall focus on for the present. I understand that there are three options:- Option A : I strongly feel that the area should be retained as it is in line with Option A This would retain the green belt land for agriculture and wildlife. In so doing the beauty of the landscape , wildlife and a village community would be preserved. Option B seems to be in line with the old local development plans where 500 houses would be permissible. I understand that this would have to be a necessity. I would need more information but at present I accept that this may be reasonable.   Option C : Pertaining in particular to the above mentioned area from Delamere Park to A49 with  apparent transport corridor. I am totally opposed to this plan. In fact I cannot accept that it has been suggested. It is an area of green belt land with all the attributes that I have outlined above. There is a clause that building on Green belt requires strong justification. Unfortunately  Government policy has changed recently at both local and National level and criteria for justification also. Hopefully the CW council will honour the original justification clause. Finally, the transport corridor from Delamere Park is already hazardous regarding road traffic. The country lanes are narrow with lethal bends. Cuddington Lane in particular is used as a short cut at peak times and the volume of traffic is excessive. There are no amenities such as schools or doctors in that area. Buses and trains are available but not frequent. I cannot believe that up to 1500 houses are considered to be feasible in this area. I STRONGLY OBJECT  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13982

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Yates

I&O_14502
I strongly support Option A , which advocates for retaining this area as Green Belt land. Barnton is cherished for its open spaces, scenic character, canal-side setting, and historic identity. Building such a substantial development here undermines the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt—to prevent urban sprawl, preserve rural character, maintain settlement separation, and protect our village’s special setting.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13987

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Hughes

I&O_14507
It appears that there is little consideration given to the current land designated as "green belt" - and that it is acceptable to build on these previously protected areas so that housing targets can be met. It is already painfully obvious that many of our market towns are joining together - e.g. Holmes Chapel, Middlewich, Winsford and Sandbach. Sadly it is now only a matter of time until this is one large urban sprawl, and the rural areas in between are lost - along with productive farming land. We hear so much about climate change, and "air miles" for food being imported - and yet we continue to lose the ability to produce our own food locally, for an ever increasing population. It is also arbitrary to consider development along "transport corridors". My own village of Cuddington has a "bus service" - one hourly single decker bus travelling between Northwich and Chester - last bus to Chester Monday to Friday leaves at 16.30. There is no service on a Sunday. The hourly train service provides a very elderly two car DMU - there is a very small car park which charges you to park. There are other similar stations along this route, which do not provide huge amounts of employment. Many of these stations are served by poor road infrastructure which is already under strain. No thought seems to have bee given to this.   There are many brownfield sites in or town centres, and also empty units which need to be maximised, Thought  also needs to be given to the type of housing envisaged - it is not only large 4 and 5 bedroomed houses that are needed but affordable housing too. Large houses produce many cars and our road structures are not sufficient to cope now.   In Cuddington, we have no doctors surgery, there are two schools which cause parking problems at drop off and collect times with inconsiderate parking, and the village roads are seriously congested already without further vehicle movement which addition housing would bring. I am sure that our village is not alone in having these problems.