Comment

Representation ID: 10056

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lady Sue Day

I&O_10553
I strongly urge the council to consider the following areas as they have the existing transport links and infrastructure to best support housing development. - NOR01 - Barnton  - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered, due to its proximity to major transport links A559, M56, and access to existing village facilities, Doctors Dentists shops and schools. It would have minimal impacts on the surrounding landscape. It would also provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the Local Plan requirements  - NOR05 - Land near Gadbrook Park    It is understood that the landowners discussed using this site for a large logistics warehouse. This land could be subject to a change of use and would be better used for residential development. It would have excellent access to the A556 - Chester - Manchester, Crewe, M6J19/J18 etc. and would mirror a similar housing development almost opposite. Gadbrook Park, since Barclays Bank left their two large sites there, it has freed up more than adequate office space for any new start up businesses, or businesses looking to relocate to the area This scheme would also give CWAC and Network Rail the opportunity to build a much needed railway station in Rudheath which could be used for passenger and potentially freight purpose  - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556  - opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and proximity to Hartford Railway station and Northwich town centre Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on Davenham directly, although in busy times it's a given that Hartford Road would be used as a rat run - NOR10 - Weaverham , which has existing infrastructure, good road network with easy access to the A49 shops, doctors, dentists and schools and capacity to accommodate further planned growth. In our opinion the site would create an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the local plan requirements. We also believe any developer as part of any planning permission granted a condition should be to potentially fund a new access road into (out of) Northwich to alleviate the pressure on the Winnington Lane bridge to /from Anderton, Barnton

Comment

Representation ID: 10059

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Irvine

I&O_10556
I urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49. NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and access to main services NB Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on either Hartford or Davenham directly.  I also believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development should be considered together with further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10062

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Yvonne Chadderton

I&O_10559
I strongly urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: - NOR01 - Barnton - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered, due to its proximity to major transport links A559, M56, and access to existing village facilities, Doctors, Dentists, shops and schools. It would have minimal impact on the surrounding landscape. It would also provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the Local Plan requirements -NOR05 - Land near Gadbrook Park, I attended an open briefing by the landowners who discussed using this site for a large logistics warehouse. It is my opinion that this land should be subject to a change of use and would be better used for residential development. It would have excellent access to the A556 - Chester - Manchester, Crewe, M6J19/J18 etc. and would mirror a similar housing development almost opposite. Gadbrook Park. Since Barclays Bank left their two large sites there, it has freed up more than adequate office space for any new start-up businesses or businesses looking to relocate to the area. This scheme would also give CWAC and Network Rail the opportunity to build a much needed railway station in Rudheath which could be used for passenger and potentially freight purposes. - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 - opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links to the A556 and its proximity to Hartford Railway station and Northwich town centre. Although green belt, the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on Davenham directly, although in busy times it's a given that Hartford Road would be used as a rat run   - NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure, a good road network with easy access to the A49, shops, doctors, dentists and schools and capacity to accommodate further planned growth. In my opinion the site would create an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the local plan requirements. I also believe any developer as part of any planning permission should be granted a condition to potentially fund a new access road into (and out of) Northwich to alleviate the pressure on the Winnington Lane bridge to and from Anderton and Barnton.

Comment

Representation ID: 10123

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lynne Manifould

I&O_10620
We strongly urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: - NOR01 - Barnton - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered, due to its proximity to major transport links A559, M56, and access to existing village facilities, Doctors Dentists shops and schools. It would have minimal impacts on the surrounding landscape. It would also provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the Local Plan requirements  -NOR05 - Land near Gadbrook Park We attended an open briefing by the landowners who discussed using this site for a large logistics warehouse. It is our opinion that this land should be subject to a change of use and would be better used for residential development. It would have excellent access to the A556 - Chester - Manchester, Crewe, M6J19/J18 etc. and would mirror a similar housing development almost opposite.  Gadbrook Park, since Barclays Bank left their two large sites there, it has freed up more than adequate office space for any new start up businesses, or businesses looking to relocate to the area  This scheme would also give CWAC and Network Rail the opportunity to build a much needed railway station in Rudheath which could be used for passenger and potentially freight purpose  - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 - opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and proximity to Hartford Railway station and Northwich town centre Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on Davenham directly, although in busy times it's a given that Hartford Road would be  used as a rat run - NOR10 - Weaverham , which has existing infrastructure, good road network with easy access to the A49 shops, doctors, dentists and schools and capacity to accommodate further planned growth. In our opinion the site would create an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the local plan requirements. We also believe any developer as part of any planning permission granted a condition should be to potentially fund a new access road into (out of) Northwich to alleviate the pressure on the Winnington Lane bridge to /from Anderton, Barnton 

Comment

Representation ID: 10141

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Manifould

NOR01, NOR05, NOR08, NOR10
I&O_10638
Question 29 - Which of the potential growth areas around Northwich do you consider the most suitable? We strongly urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: - NOR01  -  Barnton  - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered, due to its proximity to major transport links A559, M56, and access to existing village facilities, Doctors Dentists shops and schools. It would have minimal impacts on the surrounding landscape. It would also provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the Local Plan requirements -NOR05 - Land near Gadbrook Park  We attended an open briefing by the landowners who discussed using this site for a large logistics warehouse. It is our opinion that this land should be subject to a change of use and would be better used for residential development. It would have excellent access to the A556 - Chester - Manchester, Crewe, M6J19/J18 etc. and would mirror a similar housing development almost opposite. Gadbrook Park, since Barclays Bank left their two large sites there, it has freed up more than adequate office space for any new start up businesses, or businesses looking to relocate to the area This scheme would also give CWAC and Network Rail the opportunity to build a much needed railway station in Rudheath which could be used for passenger and potentially freight purpose - NOR08  -  Land adjoining the A556  - opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and proximity to Hartford Railway station and Northwich town centre Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on Davenham directly,  although in busy times it's a given that Hartford Road would be used as a rat run - NOR10  -  Weaverham , which has existing infrastructure, good road network with easy access to the A49 shops, doctors, dentists and schools and capacity to accommodate further planned growth. In our opinion the site would create an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the local plan requirements. We also believe any developer as part of any planning permission granted a condition should be to potentially fund a new access road into (out of) Northwich to alleviate the pressure on the Winnington Lane bridge to /from Anderton, Barnton

Comment

Representation ID: 10271

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Kerry Blakeman

I&O_10768
I am writing in response to the Local Authorities Local Plan “Issues and Options” consultation. I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed large-scale housing developments NOR 06 and NOR 07 outlined in the council’s local plan for Davenham village. While I recognise the importance of providing new homes, I am deeply concerned that the scale and of the proposed development will undermine the unique character, infrastructure, and environment of our community. Preserving Village Character: The charm and identity of our village stem from its small size, designated conservation area, rural landscape, and historical heritage. Introducing a significant number of new dwellings would risk transforming the village into a generic suburb of Northwich eroding the features that local residents and visitors value most. Infrastructure and Service Strain: Our existing roads especially through the village centre on London Road, schools, and health services are already stretched. Proposed development of Large-scale development would push these resources beyond their limits, potentially diminishing safety, educational quality, and healthcare access for all residents. Environmental Impact: The proposed site includes important green spaces and habitats. Developing these areas would threaten local biodiversity and increase the risk of flooding, while also reducing access to the countryside and negatively affecting wellbeing. Community Cohesion: Gradual, rapid expansion risks social division and a loss of village identity. The developments would not meet the objectives of providing affordable housing for young people

Comment

Representation ID: 10272

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Kerry Blakeman

I&O_10769
I strongly urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: NOR01 - Barnton - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered, due to its proximity to major transport links A559, M56, and access to existing village facilities, Doctors Dentists shops and schools. It would have minimal impacts on the surrounding landscape. It would also provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the Local Plan requirements  NOR05 - Land near Gadbrook Park It is my opinion that this land should be subject to a change of use and would be better used for residential development. It would have excellent access to the A556 - Chester - Manchester, Crewe, M6J19/J18 etc. and would mirror a similar housing development almost opposite. Gadbrook Park, since Barclays Bank left their two large sites there, it has freed up more than adequate office space for any new start up businesses, or businesses looking to relocate to the area. This scheme would also give CWAC and Network Rail the opportunity to build a much needed railway station in Rudheath which could be used for passenger and potentially freight purpose  NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 - opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and proximity to Hartford Railway station and Northwich town centre Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on Davenham directly, although in busy times it's a given that Hartford Road would be used as a rat run NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure, good road network with easy access to the A49 shops, doctors, dentists and schools and capacity to accommodate further planned growth. It is my opinion the site would create an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the local plan requirements. I also believe any developer as part of any planning permission should include a condition to potentially fund a new access road into (out of) Northwich to alleviate the pressure on the Winnington Lane bridge to /from Anderton, Barnton.  

Comment

Representation ID: 10401

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Nicholls

NOR01,NOR05,NOR08,NOR10
I&O_10898
I would strongly urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: NOR01 - Barnton - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the north east of Barnton should be considered, due to its proximity to major transport links A559, M56, and access to existing village facilities, such as doctors, dentists, shops and schools. NOR05 – In my opinion, subject to a change of use,  this site could be better used for a residential development. It would have excellent access to the A556 - Chester - Manchester, Crewe, M6J19/J18 etc. and would mirror a similar housing development almost opposite. Gadbrook Park, since both Barclays Bank and the HUT group have relocated to new sites there are a number of large sites available for office space for any new start-up businesses, or businesses looking to relocate to the area, meaning there is no requirement for additional provision.  NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 - opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links to A556 and proximity to Hartford Railway Station and Northwich town centre.   Although green belt, the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on Davenham directly, although in busy times it's a given that Hartford Road would be used as a rat run. NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure, good road network with easy access to the A49 shops, doctors, dentists and schools and capacity to accommodate further planned growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 10450

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Nadia O'Boye

I&O_10948
In my view, if development must take place, the following areas would be more suitable: NOR01 – Barnton : This area, though currently green belt, is well connected to the A559 and M56 and is close to existing village services such as schools, shops, and healthcare. Expansion here would have less impact on landscape character and could deliver a balanced mix of housing. NOR05 – Land near Gadbrook Park : With direct access to the A556 and proximity to existing development, this site is better suited to housing than logistics use. Since large office sites in Gadbrook have already been vacated, the need for additional employment land is reduced. Residential development here could also support the case for a new railway station at Rudheath. NOR08 – Land adjoining the A556 opposite Hartford : Despite its green belt designation, this site has strong transport links and easy access to Hartford station and Northwich town centre. Any traffic impacts here would be less damaging than in more constrained villages. NOR10 – Weaverham : Weaverham has existing infrastructure and road capacity, and development could be accompanied by investment in a new access route into Northwich to relieve pressure on the Winnington Lane bridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 10454

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Elsbeth Tucker

NOR08
I&O_10952
NOR08 - land adjoining the A556, although green belt, would provide good links to main roads, without causing extra traffic on little village roads which are already difficult to navigate, especially for emergency services i.e. fire service.  Town centre could be used, where brownfield land and unused commercial areas could be used for affordable housing, also further development of Winnington village, this would avoid building on any greenbelt.

Comment

Representation ID: 10476

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Nicholls

NOR10
I&O_10974
I would urge the Council to give greater consideration to NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49.  Also NOR08, the land adjoining the A556 opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from the better transport links to A556 and access to main services.  (Although this is Green Belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on either Hartford or Davenham directly and therefore could be considered.) Further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development should be considered, together with further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10532

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alastair Kennedy

I&O_11030
Northwich town, if housing must be built; has numerous brownfield sites and areas of infill, the Market area is ripe for private development as CWAC seem unsure what to do with this large site; also there are numerous unoccupied flats in the development adjacent to Chesterway.  Any of which would allow the infrastructure to cope better with smaller numbers of houses and apartments dotted around, rather than arbitrarily outlining single large areas of prime agricultural land and wildlife habital which would be lost if larger developments were permitted.  There is also more ‘brownfield’ land available around existing Winnington Village. NOR10 Weaverham has a better infrastructure even now than the other areas marked. It is well served with shops, a medical practice and schools (primary and secondary) as well as good transport links onto the A49. NOR08 Land adjoining the A556 opposite School Lane in Hartford; could, with junction upgrade have excellent access to the A556 without impacting on the already congested village centres of Davenham and Hartford. However; the problem of ‘other infrastructure’, shops, Medical Practice, Schools would remain. Also this would involve loss of top quality agricultural land and probably adversely affect biodiversity in the woodland in the Weaver Valley contrary to ‘sustainability objectives’.

Comment

Representation ID: 10655

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sandra Stonham

Agent: Marrons

I&O_11153
Map 5.6 on page 45 illustrates Northwich growth options. Only two sites are located in Davenham – NOR07 and NOR06 – both major residential sites, which are included in all three of the Council’s proposed spatial strategy options (A, B, and C). Additional information for identified growth areas is within Table B.3. in Appendix B, and the two sites are Davenham East (NOR6) with an estimated 862 homes, and Davenham West (NOR07) for 443 homes. We do not think either of these two options for Davenham are suitable since these are large land areas that have a limited relationship to the existing settlement or local facilities, and the proposed development is of a disproportionate scale in the context of the village The LAA Stage One update report indicates at least 33 sites that have been considered ‘suitable’ for potential residential development within the parish of Davenham alone, 21 of which are adjacent settlements to the existing Northwich urban area (within 100m). None of these sites are included in the consultation document as potential growth areas, and this is misleading. The Council needs to ensure it follows a full, rigorous site selection process, and that growth areas are not limited to these very broad and disproportionately large allocations.

Support

Representation ID: 10705

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Allcock

I&O_11203
I urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: - NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49 - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 -opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and access to main services NB Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on either Hartford or Davenham directly  I also believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development should be considered, together with further expansion of Winnington Village.  This also creates an opportunity to create a vibrant town centre in Northwich with people working and living in the town centre to support local businesses and the leisure economy in the town which is clearly struggling economically. When considering the number of shopping and business units which remain vacant and have been vacant for sometime this would appear to be the prime development area and reducing the need to use greenfield sites. The redevelopment of Winningtons industrial works, which are now largely vacant, provides an ideal opportunity to repurpose a disused old industrial brownfield site and meet the demand for housing. It also reduces the need to use greenfield land for housing.

Support

Representation ID: 10709

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Allcock

I&O_11207
I urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: - NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49 - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 -opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and access to main services NB Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on either Hartford or Davenham directly  I also believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development should be considered, together with further expansion of Winnington Village.  This also creates an opportunity to create a vibrant town centre in Northwich with people working and living in the town centre to support local businesses and the leisure economy in the town which is clearly struggling economically. When considering the number of shopping and business units which remain vacant and have been vacant for sometime this would appear to be the prime development area and reducing the need to use greenfield sites. The redevelopment of Winningtons industrial works, which are now largely vacant, provides an ideal opportunity to repurpose a disused old industrial brownfield site and meet the demand for housing. It also reduces the need to use greenfield land for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 10713

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqui Allcock

NOR10, NOR08
I&O_11211
I urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas: - NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49 - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 -opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and access to main services NB Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on either Hartford or Davenham directly  I also believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development should be considered, together with further expansion of Winnington Village.  This also creates an opportunity to create a vibrant town centre in Northwich with people working and living in the town centre to support local businesses and the leisure economy in the town which is clearly struggling economically. When considering the number of shopping and business units which remain vacant and have been vacant for sometime this would appear to be the prime development area and reducing the need to use greenfield sites. The redevelopment of Winningtons industrial works, which are now largely vacant, provides an ideal opportunity to repurpose a disused old industrial brownfield site and meet the demand for housing. It also reduces the need to use greenfield land for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 10733

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Kennedy

NOR10, NOR08
I&O_11231
Northwich town, if housing must be built; has numerous brownfield sites and areas of infill, the Market area is ripe for private development as CWAC seem unsure what to do with this large site; also there are numerous unoccupied flats in the development adjacent to Chesterway. Any of which would allow the infrastructure to cope better with smaller numbers of houses and apartments dotted around, rather than arbitrarily outlining single large areas of prime agricultural land and wildlife habital which would be lost if larger developments were permitted. There is also more ‘brownfield’ land available around existing Winnington Village. NOR10 Weaverham has a better infrastructure even now than the other areas marked. It is well served with shops, a medical practice and schools (primary and secondary) as well as good transport links onto the A49. NOR08 Land adjoining the A556 opposite School Lane in Hartford; could, with junction upgrade have excellent access to the A556 without impacting on the already congested village centres of Davenham and Hartford. However; the problem of ‘other infrastructure’, shops, Medical Practice, Schools would remain. Also this would involve loss of top quality agricultural land and probably adversely affect biodiversity in the woodland in the Weaver Valley contrary to ‘sustainability objectives’.

Comment

Representation ID: 10762

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cherie Aston

NOR10, NOR08
I&O_11260
NOR10 Weaverham, this area has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49. NOR08 Land adjoining the A556, opposite Hartford. This area is close to the A556 for transport links and main services. Although this area is green belt it would not add pressure directly to Hartford or Davenham.  We also believe that the further regeneration of Northwich Town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development, paired with further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10792

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_11290
Out of the growth options identified, area NOR02 appears to be in the most sustainable and logical location. It is the Hayfield Homes’ opinion however, that either this should be extended, or a further growth area should be identified to the north, at Higher Wincham, to encapsulate the Land off Church Street.

Comment

Representation ID: 10834

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Broster

NOR10
I&O_11332
Future housing growth must go where it fits, using existing infrastructure, protecting green space, and keeping community character intact. Most suitable growth areas NOR10 – Weaverham: Established infrastructure, capacity for growth, and excellent access to the A49 make this a logical choice for balanced, mixed housing. Northwich Town Centre regeneration: Brownfield and underused sites should be prioritised to deliver sustainable, mixed-use housing, revitalising the town and protecting surrounding green space. Winnington Village expansion: Further controlled growth here would build on existing community facilities and infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 10882

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11380
The potential growth options around Northwich appear sensible and considered. It would be very easy for the options to entirely focus on land to the south – outside of the green belt – but sensibly much of this land is well beyond the settlement boundary and disconnected from shops, services and transport options other than the private car. The officers preparing these growth options should be commended for taking a ‘policy off’ approach. In general, the possible locations for growth are most favourable towards the south and west of the  map, offering better connection to the strategic highways network as well as offering access to the railway stations. In addition, other sites appear to be somewhat awkwardly placed against the side of settlements without any form of natural containment. There are other, better sites which are bounded by existing highway and railway infrastructure which lessens the landscape impact.

Comment

Representation ID: 10947

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11445
The Council supports development in the following areas NOR04 to NOR08 as identified in option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 11402

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Connie Johnson

NOR08,NOR10
I&O_11900
I would strongly encourage the Council to give further attention to the following locations: NOR08 – The land adjoins the A556, meaning it has excellent transport connections and good access to key services. Any development here would not place additional traffic pressure on Hartford or Davenham, which are both already heavily congested and, certainly in the case of Davenham, has an inadequate public transport network to ease any additional traffic. NOR10 – This area already benefits from established infrastructure and Weaverham has the capacity to support additional growth. It also presents an opportunity to deliver a varied housing mix with convenient access to the A49. In addition, while not put forward in the proposed Local Plan, I believe there is significant potential in regenerating Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underutilised commercial sites present a prime opportunity to deliver high-quality, mixed-use housing in a sustainable and strategically aligned way. The expansion of Winnington Village presents similar opportunities, benefitting from excellent transport links and the close proximity to Northwich town centre and all of its amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 11529

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12027
There should be no development on Green Belt or best quality agricultural land.

Comment

Representation ID: 11792

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Newman

NOR06 and NOR07
I&O_12290
Good Morning   I wish to have my concerns regarding the proposals in the local plan in respect of Davenham (Areas  NOR06 - NOR07 ) noted.   Davenham is a historic village with a strong sense of identity and a designated Conservation Area. The proposed developments would dramatically alter the rural character of the village, and risk encroachment on heritage assets and open spaces valued by the community. The scale of  proposed development of over 1300 new homes potentially increasing the population of the village by over 5000 is entirely disproportionate to the village’s size and setting.   Davenham’s existing infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity. The road network particularly the A556, Hartford Road, and London Road, suffers from heavy congestion, and further development would exacerbate traffic, air quality, and safety concerns. Public transport provision is minimal, and additional residents would place unsustainable pressure on limited local bus services.   The sites identified include large areas of prime agricultural land which has been farmed by local families for generations not only adding to the local economy but also producing crops and livestock making a valuable contribution to the country’s already short supply of home produced food.   The sites also include areas at risk of flooding or land that serves an important function in mitigating local flood risk. Any development here would increase surface water run-off and impact local watercourses and furthermore create a loss of biodiversity and greenfield land, contrary to sustainability objectives.   I am aware of planning applications and interest from developers that are more aligned with the scale and character of the village. These include a current application submitted by Wain Estates, a pre-application from Stonhams and a small development at Bostock Green collectively involving around 200 dwellings. These proposals would be more proportionate to Davenham’s capacity and infrastructure and would be more likely to receive support, provided they are delivered with appropriate design, infrastructure investment, and sensitivity to the village setting.   For these reasons, I would urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reconsider the proposed development allocations within the parish. I request that all current proposals for large-scale residential development in Davenham be removed or significantly scaled back in the final Local Plan  

Comment

Representation ID: 11842

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Houston

NOR11
I&O_12341
I am writing to state my objection to the building proposals set out in your planning portal with the designated references of NOR 11, proposed development of land adjoining Sandy Lane Weaverham. I am alarmed and concerned about the proposed developments for personal and community reasons. I also wish to complain that I found out about the consultation by accident and I would have expected to be contacted and personally written to by the council as my house is going to be directly affected by the proposed NOR 11 developments. I find it very disappointing that I was not personally contacted. I have witnessed the decline in green spaces and the loss of open countryside over the last 30 years in the Northwich/ Weaverham/Cuddington areas. The green spaces were features which the community have enjoyed and cherished and are part of the character and heritage of the county. What is equally alarming is the threat to Green Belt land by the proposed planning options being considered by the council. It would seem to me logical to exhaust completely the brown field sites, and regeneration sites for housing development and then to consider non- Green Belt land for development with Green Belt land being considered as a last resort only.  The way the council has  presented the proposed 3 options for housing development for the new Local Plan seems to equalise consideration for Green Belt development  and non-Green Belt land  which seems wholly wrong to me and against the long held belief by those who cherish our rural heritage and culture, that Green Belt was sacred to Cheshire in particular and to be held on trust by our community for the generations to come, only to be considered for development as a very last resort. The council by its published proposals do not seem to value this view, which is truly worrying, and I expect much opposition by the community as people begin to find out what is being proposed. As many do not. The consultation has been too short in time scale for response and was not widely published to people directly affected. It is no excuse to say the detail is on the planning portal. People do nor regularly review the planning portal they just get on with their lives. Expecting people to trawl face book and social media for drastic planning proposals is no excuse for proper communication with the community. I am aware of the need for new housing nationally and the obligations to build houses in the Cheshire coming from Central Government but am saddened by the thought of the urban sprawl and encroachment on our green spaced that the proposed dwellings ( NOR 11) would engender particularly over Green Belt spaces. The conservation of local communities will be threatened.  This NOR 11 proposals will directly adversely affect the conservation area starting at Shady Brook Lane and into Weaverham centre. The original A49 bypass was a welcome development to counter the traffic congestion on the old A49/ Sandy Lane, we don’t want to return to what that was like with road widening, building, de- ruralisation and de-forestation and  over development of land adjoining Sandy Lane. It seems to me that the historic tranquillity, setting and character of the community in and around Weaverham, West Road, Sandy Lane, Shady Brook Lane and Station Road leading up Acton Bridge and Acton Lane is going to be decimated by the NOR 11 development.  And it’s building on Green Belt.  Other local villages, including Kingsley and Norley will also be badly adversely affected.  I would wish to preserve the green spaces and Green Belt in and around the proposed development areas to uphold the rural character, setting and heritage of the area.  Cheshire after all has always been a rural county. I am concerned about the adverse impact on local roads, safety for our community consisting of a high proportion of older citizens, and inappropriate  infrastructure. This development would be jarring and incongruous for this local area which will become unrecognisable slowing merging into a Northwich urbanisation. We do not want road widening and urban sprawl. These developments will give rise to more traffic, more pollution, more congestion, poor air quality, difficulty for people moving around the locality, inadequate parking and the inevitable speeding which we are still suffering along Sandy Lane despite some traffic calming measure having been out in place. Other villages will become rat runs for traffic, the loss of recognised local village communities and an urban sprawl across the locality. As mentioned above it would seem far more sensible to continue building on the brown field sites and regeneration sites in and around Northwich or areas which are not Green Belt. And then to consider non- Green Belt rural spaces which are plentiful in the locality.  Our Green Belt needs protecting, it’s Green Belt for a reason we need to respect it. The local character and environment and setting surrounding Sandy Lane, Shady Brook Lane and Station Road and Acton Lane and the whole of Acton Bridge will be damaged irreparably by NOR11. Flooding in the area is already a problem. Loss of trees, bushes and hedging and crops and concreting tarmacking and road building will cause even more water run-off, more soil erosion and provide unbridled water table surge on to Sandy Lane and the areas on and off the Warrington road up to the Leigh Arms Swing Bridge and on to local  private land owners and houses in that area. We should be building more flooding defences and planting more trees not concreting everything.  We have already witnessed increased flooding problems in these areas in the last 5 years or so and we don't want more. Some houses are virtually uninsurable because of the flooding risks already. I am also concerned regarding the lack of local facilities to meet increased demand from the new housing developments not only for NOR11 developments but also for NOR 10 and NOR 12. Weaverham has one GP facility which is poorly rated by the CQC, and the local secondary school in Weaverham is near capacity. There is one dentist surgery which is full. A full health impact assessment would be needed and an assessment of air quality in these development areas as the increased traffic and pollution is likely to adversely affect air quality. An assessment is required of how facilities would need to change to meet health and education demands and how such developments might affect the existing semi- rural culture and heritage of the area. Only then should we the community decide if we want it or not. A travel analysis would be required to properly assess how people would move around in the new regimes caused by the housing development (NOR 11, NOR 10 and NOR 12). There is a poor bus infrastructure already connecting the local villages. In short, a full analysis would be required on how local people would be disadvantaged by these proposals. It seems to me that we as a community should consider the options available given the housing requirements but prioritise matters by protecting our Green Belt areas first and concentrating on developing Brown Field sites, regeneration sights and non-Green belt land first and in that order. I think that no developments of this nature should take place until the council and the community have approved the new Local Plan which I understand has to be finalised by end of 2026 and only then to consider the building proposals suggested. Furthermore, I can see that many of the objections I have raised regarding NOR 11 will also be valid considerations for NOR 10 and NOR 12 and those proposals should be subject to the same scrutiny of issues I have raised and  subject to proper informed consultation with local residents as for NOR 11. In conclusion, above all we should safeguard the Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl, congestion and the inevitable destruction of the historic cultural heritage, setting and character of the villages in the area. The planning proposals do not seem to be good for the health and well-being of the local population. I would summarise the proposal for NOR 11 as nothing short of community vandalism .

Comment

Representation ID: 11860

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Russell

I&O_12359
I have tried on many occasions to take the opportunity to comment on the new locaL plan but have found no online forms but here we go     I know that central government are offering huge incentives to council to fill every green space there is outside Surrey to house people that have no connection with Cheshire whatsoever , the councils duty is to residents not coffers , I therefore object strongly to any building on greenbelt or farms or such . I also know that builders love green belt and hate brownfield . Northwich itself has permission to build 1500 houses at Winnington that should cover most of its quota .So there it is  no building on green belt , we have sufficient brown field in large supply  

Comment

Representation ID: 11867

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Finnigan

NOR01, NOR10
I&O_12370
Areas I believe to be considered suitable for planned houses - NOR01 - North East of Barnton to be considered for houses due to proximity to major transport links - A559 and existing village facilities - dentists, Drs, large school etc N0R10 - Greater consideration to Weaverham for more housing - existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth with good links to the A49 Also, Northwich town centre has much brown field areas and vacant commercial properties that need to be investigated and all have good facilities and infrastructure and could provide more affordable first time buyer homes rather than premium ones that most developers seem to be building.

Comment

Representation ID: 11885

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Coral Houston

NOR11
I&O_12399
I am writing to state my objection to the building proposals set out in your planning portal with the designated references of NOR 11, proposed development of land adjoining Sandy Lane Weaverham. I am alarmed and concerned about the proposed developments for personal and community reasons. I also wish to complain that I found out about the consultation by accident and I would have expected to be contacted and personally written to by the council as my house is going to be directly affected by the proposed NOR 11 developments. I find it very disappointing that I was not personally contacted. I have witnessed the decline in green spaces and the loss of open countryside over the last 30 years in the Northwich/ Weaverham/Cuddington areas. The green spaces were features which the community have enjoyed and cherished and are part of the character and heritage of the county. What is equally alarming is the threat to Green Belt land by the proposed planning options being considered by the council. It would seem to me logical to exhaust completely the brown field sites, and regeneration sites for housing development and then to consider non- Green Belt land for development with Green Belt land being considered as a last resort only.  The way the council has  presented the proposed 3 options for housing development for the new Local Plan seems to equalise consideration for Green Belt development  and non-Green Belt land  which seems wholly wrong to me and against the long held belief by those who cherish our rural heritage and culture, that Green Belt was sacred to Cheshire in particular and to be held on trust by our community for the generations to come, only to be considered for development as a very last resort. The council by its published proposals do not seem to value this view, which is truly worrying, and I expect much opposition by the community as people begin to find out what is being proposed. As many do not. The consultation has been too short in time scale for response and was not widely published to people directly affected. It is no excuse to say the detail is on the planning portal. People do nor regularly review the planning portal they just get on with their lives. Expecting people to trawl face book and social media for drastic planning proposals is no excuse for proper communication with the community. I am aware of the need for new housing nationally and the obligations to build houses in the Cheshire coming from Central Government but am saddened by the thought of the urban sprawl and encroachment on our green spaced that the proposed dwellings ( NOR 11) would engender particularly over Green Belt spaces. The conservation of local communities will be threatened.  This NOR 11 proposals will directly adversely affect the conservation area starting at Shady Brook Lane and into Weaverham centre. The original A49 bypass was a welcome development to counter the traffic congestion on the old A49/ Sandy Lane, we don’t want to return to what that was like with road widening, building, de- ruralisation and de-forestation and  over development of land adjoining Sandy Lane. It seems to me that the historic tranquillity, setting and character of the community in and around Weaverham, West Road, Sandy Lane, Shady Brook Lane and Station Road leading up Acton Bridge and Acton Lane is going to be decimated by the NOR 11 development.  And it’s building on Green Belt.  Other local villages, including Kingsley and Norley will also be badly adversely affected.  I would wish to preserve the green spaces and Green Belt in and around the proposed development areas to uphold the rural character, setting and heritage of the area.  Cheshire after all has always been a rural county. I am concerned about the adverse impact on local roads, safety for our community consisting of a high proportion of older citizens, and inappropriate  infrastructure. This development would be jarring and incongruous for this local area which will become unrecognisable slowing merging into a Northwich urbanisation. We do not want road widening and urban sprawl. These developments will give rise to more traffic, more pollution, more congestion, poor air quality, difficulty for people moving around the locality, inadequate parking and the inevitable speeding which we are still suffering along Sandy Lane despite some traffic calming measure having been out in place. Other villages will become rat runs for traffic, the loss of recognised local village communities and an urban sprawl across the locality. As mentioned above it would seem far more sensible to continue building on the brown field sites and regeneration sites in and around Northwich or areas which are not Green Belt. And then to consider non- Green Belt rural spaces which are plentiful in the locality.  Our Green Belt needs protecting, it’s Green Belt for a reason we need to respect it. The local character and environment and setting surrounding Sandy Lane, Shady Brook Lane and Station Road and Acton Lane and the whole of Acton Bridge will be damaged irreparably by NOR11. Flooding in the area is already a problem. Loss of trees, bushes and hedging and crops and concreting tarmacking and road building will cause even more water run-off, more soil erosion and provide unbridled water table surge on to Sandy Lane and the areas on and off the Warrington road up to the Leigh Arms Swing Bridge and on to local  private land owners and houses in that area. We should be building more flooding defences and planting more trees not concreting everything.  We have already witnessed increased flooding problems in these areas in the last 5 years or so and we don't want more. Some houses are virtually uninsurable because of the flooding risks already. I am also concerned regarding the lack of local facilities to meet increased demand from the new housing developments not only for NOR11 developments but also for NOR 10 and NOR 12. Weaverham has one GP facility which is poorly rated by the CQC, and the local secondary school in Weaverham is near capacity. There is one dentist surgery which is full.   A full health impact assessment would be needed and an assessment of air quality in these development areas as the increased traffic and pollution is likely to adversely affect air quality. An assessment is required of how facilities would need to change to meet health and education demands and how such developments might affect the existing semi- rural culture and heritage of the area. Only then should we the community decide if we want it or not. A travel analysis would be required to properly assess how people would move around in the new regimes caused by the housing development (NOR 11, NOR 10 and NOR 12). There is a poor bus infrastructure already connecting the local villages. In short, a full analysis would be required on how local people would be disadvantaged by these proposals. It seems to me that we as a community should consider the options available given the housing requirements but prioritise matters by protecting our Green Belt areas first and concentrating on developing Brown Field sites, regeneration sights and non-Green belt land first and in that order. I think that no developments of this nature should take place until the council and the community have approved the new Local Plan which I understand has to be finalised by end of 2026 and only then to consider the building proposals suggested. Furthermore, I can see that many of the objections I have raised regarding NOR 11 will also be valid considerations for NOR 10 and NOR 12 and those proposals should be subject to the same scrutiny of issues I have raised and  subject to proper informed consultation with local residents as for NOR 11. In conclusion, above all we should safeguard the Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl, congestion and the inevitable destruction of the historic cultural heritage, setting and character of the villages in the area. The planning proposals do not seem to be good for the health and well-being of the local population. I would summarise the proposal for NOR 11 as nothing short of community vandalism .

Comment

Representation ID: 11937

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Mercer

I&O_12451
Question 29 - Which of the potential growth areas around Northwich do you consider the most suitable? Consideration should be given to those areas where transport and infrastructure issues can be minimised and where conservation and heritage will not be directly affected. Hartford NOR8, Northwich centre and Winsford have direct rail services which should be prioritised over road traffic to reduce congestion and increased environmental impact. Weaverham - NOR10 has existing infrastructure and good access to both the A49 and rail stations in Hartford.  Northwich town centre in particular has brownfield land and legacy commercial areas which offer a prime opportunity for regeneration and sustainable, affordable housing which would suit first-time buyers, drive increased employment and help reinvigorate a town centre which is suffering from decreased footfall and shop closures from the major chains. Any initiatives which can arrest this decline and put Northwich on a path to be a vibrant town centre again should be considered as a priority.