Comment

Representation ID: 3481

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_3655
SS11 Option A - retail the green belt 

Comment

Representation ID: 3490

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Penny Burton

I&O_3664
My preferred option is A  Options B & C is the ongoing destruction of the British countryside. Soon there will be no green or open spaces. My reasons for preferring and supporting Option A are as below. I sincerely hope, and trust, that Cheshire West & Chester Council consider the impact that any developments, as has been put forward, will have on the Environment and Health of current and future generations. IN SUPPORT OF OPTION A - RETAINING THE GREEN BELT Lack of Infrastructure   Doctors within Weaverham and the surrounding areas are already running at capacity. As it stands currently, it is already difficult to get an appointment when you want one.  Any further influx of residents to the area will create an impossible task for the medical centres.  The same criteria apply to Dentists – they are unable to take on any additional patients.  Leighton Hospital is unable to cope now. It is too small for the volume of patients it is having to cater to. Emergency patients are kept waiting for hours due to the shortage of beds. Any increase in residents to the Weaverham area will only make this situation worse and the level of care will suffer as a result.  The Ambulance service is stretched to the limit – waiting times are often hours not minutes – then they have the added pressure of waiting for a bed at Leighton Hospital.  Schools in the Weaverham/Northwich areas are already heavily over-subscribed – so where do any new families send their children to be educated?  Nurseries and pre-schools are facing the same problem – insufficient places currently and with no provision to expand these facilities.  Reservoirs are at critical levels and there does not appear to be any plans to build additional water catchments of any kind. More developments puts increased pressure on an already stretched resource  The National Grid would be put under severe pressure. Even with any solar power, the addition of numerous houses all drawing down from it would present a huge burden. The same applies to gas supplies.  Current local transport/bus routes are insufficient for current Weaverham population levels and will not serve an increase in residents.  There are few facilities in place for young people to keep them off the streets. Further developments would mean more families ergo more children and little, or nothing, for them to do. Environmental Impact   Increased volume of vehicles means more air pollution and adds to global warming. Something the Government is trying to prevent …..  Removal of any trees through development, has significant consequences for the environment and can negatively impact human life. These consequences include climate change due to increased greenhouse gases, loss of habitat and biodiversity, soil erosion and disruptions to the water cycle.  There are owls, buzzards, red kites, kestrels and sparrow hawks – to name but a few – living in the area. Their natural habitat will be destroyed as will their food chain. Also affected would be foxes, rabbits, badgers, bats, swallows, swifts etc.  There is a multitude of wildlife in the area that would be significantly impacted if the Green Belt areas were lost. Traffic and access concerns   The pavements are in a poor state as are some alleyways/ginnels that connect two roads – such as the one between Keepers Lane & Wallerscote Road.  Pavements are uneven and present a fall risk especially to the elderly. The unevenness is also a hazard to people pushing prams/pushchairs or small children on scooters  Roads need significant attention to bring them up to a suitable standard. Where repairs have been done i.e. patching up potholes, these have not lasted due to the amount of traffic that already comes through Weaverham. An increase of vehicles will cause the roads to deteriorate further and at a faster rate.  Weaverham is a historical village – not a town – and has quite a few buildings dating back centuries. Some of these buildings are situated along the High Street. An increased volume of traffic – cars and heavy vehicles - will have a severe impact on the structural integrity of these historic buildings. Weaverham High Street is also very narrow in some places and this increased traffic will cause major problems with access.  Wallerscote Road has a weight limit on it. Any further traffic and heavy vehicles will degrade the road further and at a faster rate.  There is one – very narrow – pavement down Wallerscote Road to the corner by Beech Hill Farm making pedestrian access difficult. FLOOD RISK The current drainage system cannot cope with the volume discharged by existing  residences and businesses in the Weaverham area. Whenever there is heavy rain, flooding inevitably occurs as has happened in the past few years along Keepers Lane, Wallerscote Road and Sandy Lane. I have had personal experience of such devastating flooding at my property on Keepers Lane which caused significant damage. Destruction of the Green Belt increases the prospect of flooding and resultant damage to properties both residential and business.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3520

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Byrne

I&O_3694
While I would reluctantly select Option A as the least damaging of the spatial choices, I strongly object to the proposal for up to 500 new homes in Cuddington and Sandiway Parish. This allocation is excessive, unjustified, and inconsistent with both national policy and the Council’s own adopted Local Plan. --- Settlement Role and Housing Distribution  Cuddington and Sandiway are categorised as Local Service Villages under the settlement hierarchy. Local Plan Part One Policy STRAT 8 (Rural Areas) makes clear that rural settlements should accommodate only modest levels of development, largely through infill, small-scale development, and redevelopment to meet local needs. By contrast, the proposed allocation of up to 500 homes represents a strategic scale of growth that is more appropriate to towns and designated growth areas. It is therefore inconsistent with Policy STRAT 8. The NPPF (paragraphs 79–80) also requires that housing in rural areas should be proportionate and reflect local needs, which this proposal fails to do.  --- Housing Targets Already Met The parish has already delivered significant levels of new housing in recent years, meeting (and exceeding) its fair share of the borough-wide housing requirement. Allocating a further 500 homes would disproportionately burden the parish and contradicts the spatial balance intended by Local Plan Part One Policy STRAT 5 (Transport and Accessibility), which seeks to direct the majority of growth to more sustainable locations. --- Infrastructure Capacity Local infrastructure is already under strain: Highways: The A49 and A556 are heavily congested, forming the natural confines of the settlement. Policy STRAT 10 (Transport and Accessibility) and the NPPF (paragraph 110) require development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid severe cumulative impacts. A development of this scale would directly breach this policy test. Education & Healthcare: Schools and GP services are already at capacity. Policy STRAT 11 (Infrastructure) requires new development to be supported by appropriate infrastructure, which is clearly not deliverable in this case. Utilities & Drainage: Existing drainage and utility networks are constrained, with no evidence in the consultation that expansion is feasible or viable.  --- Settlement Pattern and Natural Boundaries The A556 and A49 provide natural and defensible boundaries to the built form of Cuddington and Sandiway. Large-scale development beyond these confines would: Lead to urban sprawl, Erode the rural setting and character, Risk coalescence with neighbouring settlements. This would directly conflict with Policy STRAT 9 (Green Belt and Countryside), which seeks to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and with the NPPF (paragraph 174), which requires planning to protect valued landscapes and recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside.  --- Sustainability and Climate Objectives A housing allocation of this magnitude in Cuddington and Sandiway would undermine both local and national sustainability objectives: Transport Sustainability: The parish has limited local employment and public transport, making new residents car-dependent. This contravenes Policy STRAT 5 (Transport and Accessibility) and the NPPF (paragraph 105), both of which require development to reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable modes. Environmental Impacts: Large-scale development here would increase emissions, threaten biodiversity, and add to flood risk. This undermines Policy STRAT 1 (Sustainable Development) and NPPF paragraph 152, which require that growth is planned in a way that supports the transition to a low-carbon future and reduces risks from climate change. --- Conclusion While I reluctantly support Option A as the least harmful overall approach, I strongly oppose the allocation of up to 500 homes in Cuddington and Sandiway.  This level of growth:  Conflicts with Local Plan Part One Policies STRAT 1, STRAT 5, STRAT 8, STRAT 9, STRAT 10 and STRAT 11. Breaches multiple NPPF requirements around proportionality, sustainability, infrastructure provision, transport, and countryside protection. Ignores the fact that the parish has already met its housing target under the current plan period.  Risks urban sprawl beyond the A556/A49 natural confines, undermining the character and identity of the parish. I therefore urge the Council to: Substantially reduce or remove the proposed allocation for Cuddington and Sandiway.  Direct strategic housing growth to towns and designated growth areas with infrastructure and sustainable transport capacity.  Limit any future development in Cuddington and Sandiway to small-scale, proportionate schemes within existing settlement boundaries, consistent with the role of a Local Service Village.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3541

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3715
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3577

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Weatherup

I&O_3756
Option A should be the priority

Comment

Representation ID: 3590

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Erica Partridge

I&O_3772
A balanced approach to spatial distribution should be achieved, so that different parts of the borough can grow sustainably but equally areas aren't overloaded so that the local services and infrastructure can't support the growth.  None of the options suggested achieve this position. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3593

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Kerrie Pimm

SS 11
I&O_3775
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3601

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Bridget Sarstedt

Question SS 11
I&O_3783
My preferred option is Option C - Sustainable transport corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 3805

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Ross

I&O_3987
Option A - retain the green belt.  We need to preserve the countryside & our historic landscapes.  Our village should retain its identity & not be merged with surrounding villages, creating urban sprawl.

Comment

Representation ID: 3866

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Proctor

I&O_4048
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 3929

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4111
Option A - retain Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 3948

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4130
Favour d. because although I tend toward b. I want to see both a. and c. having some prioity - ie. integrated approach

Comment

Representation ID: 4039

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4247
Little Leigh Parish Council favours Option A : Retain the Green Belt. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4060

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Ditchfield

I&O_4268
Opotion A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4063

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Hair

I&O_4271
Option A retain the green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4099

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Terence Nolan

SS5 Question SS11
I&O_4327
I select Option A Retain the Green Belt. Where all other options have been exhausted, and with consideration to matters raised in answer to Question SS10, release of land within the North Cheshire Green Belt could be considered to satisfy a specific, identifiable need and only where good public transport and other public services are available. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4166

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4395
Otion C is the best option   Option A to retain the Green Belt is not compatible with the role of Chester. Chester is not only a key town for Cheshire but for a large area of North Wales too. Around Ellesmere Port it is incompatible with industrial ambitions Also would lead to imbalanced development in the wider borough. Some settlements in Green Belt would like to grow but are constrained. Instead there is a marked imbalance with some villages outside GB growing by 50% in the coming plan period, while those settlements in Green Belt become rural backwaters and cannot sustain any local shops or facilities. This is not necessary to meet the initial intention of the Green Belt. (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and (e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Unrestricted sprawl can be reduced by other development rules, such as increasing density, making sure that land serves several purposes (energy generation by installing solar panels on rooves, industrial sites and car park), and reducing sprawl of industrial and commercial sites – for examples by requiring shared or multi-story car parks for retail sites The North Cheshire Green Belt was drawn more generously than needed to be to stop Chester merging into Northwich. Keeping the full extent of the Green Belt will also only partially support obj (c) – the large green belt will push development onto rural areas outside of the Green Belt, which are easy and profitable for developers Objective (e) is better achieved by other policies, since there are more choices than developing Green Belt or urban land – ie other unprotected rural sites

Comment

Representation ID: 4221

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Bell

SS11
I&O_4450
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 4320

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Gidley

I&O_4549
I wish to register my whole hearted support for Plan A in the current consultation on the new Local Plan for Weaverham. Plan A represents the most sustainable and appropriate option for the village. It rightly protects the Green Belt and respects the scale and nature of the community.  It acknowledges the infrastructure pressures already arising from recent developments in Winnington and Wallerscote Salt works. Reasons for supporting Plan A include : - Preserving the Green Belt to prevent overdevelopment, protect the countryside and retain separation from neighbouring communities. Never has our green space been valued and proved more necessary than in the Covid epidemic. Weaverham should not become a suburb of Northwich .  Avoiding already unsustainable pressure on roads Our local GP practice is under huge pressure to cope with demand and local services are struggling to cope.  Protecting agricultural land which  is so important for our country to be more self sufficient in growing and producing our own food, besides protecting biodiversity and local habitats   Weaverham is an ancient village and it's historic rural identity should be preserved.  Where appropriate brownfield development and urban intensification should be prioritized  Plan A offers the most proportionate approach to housing without sacrificing the long term sustainability and character of the village of Weaverham. I urge CWAC to adopt Plan A as the preferred spatial strategy for Weaverham in the finalized Local Plan.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4358

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Russell & Linda Smith

I&O_4587
Our submission is that Option B is preferred because it would allow for (limited) development within the green belted “V” of the A49 and A556 to the north and east of the Key Service Centre (KSC) of Cuddington & Sandiway.  Any such development should have access to local services within the KSC without having to cross either of these major highways.  As can be seen from the attached map, there are many such potential sites within this “V”, not least of which is the Cemex Forest Hill sand quarry, significant parts of which are nearing exhaustion (between the A556 and the Mid Cheshire railway line). Option C should be avoided at all costs since claiming that Cuddington is on a “Sustainable Transport Corridor” is stretching credulity.  The train service on the Mid Cheshire line is hardly sustainable as it offers an extremely slow and unreliable east-west-only service to Chester and Manchester.  The bus service, when it runs, is hourly at best and serves only Northwich and Chester.  The only sustainable mode of transport for work is the car.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 4419

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Conway

SS11
I&O_4655
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4456

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4709
Please select the option which is  the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester:   Option A - Retain the Green Belt  

Comment

Representation ID: 4512

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Miles

I&O_4790
Option C seems to provide the most positives while mitigating climate issues, which I feel should be a priority

Comment

Representation ID: 4522

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Amanda Vernon

Agent: Savills (L & P) Ltd

I&O_4804
The most appropriate spatial strategies for CW&C are Options B and C above. For the reasons outlined above, namely to ensure the Local Plan is ambitious and plans to deliver sufficient housing and employment land. While Savills recognises the prioritisation of previously developed land for housing development, there is not a sufficient supply of available and viable previously developed land in urban areas that is capable of accommodating the development requirements in respect of both housing and employment needs. Green Belt and green field development will therefore be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 4547

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Gwyn

Q SS 11
I&O_4830
Option B. Follow the Local Plan level and distibution.

Comment

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Gabrielle, Thomas and Philip Bohme-Goad and Goad

I&O_4842
WE hereby choose option  B  OPTION B - Follow Current Local Plan Distribution Continue with the current local Plan's distribution and local plans drawn up by the local community for the local community who are best placed to assess need . These plans are devastating to the country and county, are being rushed through and not required.  A target has been arbitrarily given by a Government which does not relate to community need or to the woeful lack of sustainable transport links, health, educational and energy infrastructure.  

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

Comment

Representation ID: 4627

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Norley Parish Council

I&O_4913
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 4635

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Tom Armatage

I&O_4921
Option C is the most appropriate spatical strategy for Cheshire West and Chester. Without strong public transport options along key transport corridors, housing will not be popular for many moving to the area. With the proximity to large economic centres such as Cheshire, Liverpool and Manchester, the ability to commute quickly and cheaply is of huge importance in considering where additional housing should be built. If houses are built in areas far from train stations with quick access to these places, this would lead to an increased volume of cars on Cheshire's roads, adding stress to traffic and physical infrastructure, and emergency services. By contrast, if additional housing requirements are focused in areas of transport corridors with strong public transport availability, this will reduce pressures on key road infrastructure, increase the safety of transport, and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 4643

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Smith

I&O_4939
Option A or Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 4657

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Barry

I&O_4953
SS11 I believe the Green belt should be protected.