Comment

Representation ID: 466

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Williams

I&O_549
Acknowledging the publication of your new local plan, I am writing to ask you to come along to see the small village of Davenham which has already changed substantially due to the development at Fountain Lane and along Church Street. Ours is a quaint village with two village pubs, a primary school, a petrol station .. couple of local shops. No substantial parking, no space in our school. We are distinct from our next villages; Moulton and Bostock and Kingsmead. Separated by our boundary green spaces. Please preserve our quaint village

Comment

Representation ID: 469

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Craig Oakes

I&O_552
I write this letter not only as a long-standing resident of Davenham, but as a father and active member of a community that is as close-knit as it is historic. I am deeply concerned—and frankly devastated—by the proposed development of 5,000 new homes across Northwich and Winsford, and the significant impact this would have on our village. From what has been shared in the consultation materials, Davenham stands to be disproportionately and irreversibly affected. Let me start by stating that Davenham is not just a place on a map. It is a living, breathing community with a soul that has endured through centuries. Mentioned in the Domesday Book, Davenham’s heritage, character, and semi-rural charm are rare and precious—not just to those of us who live here, but to the county of Cheshire as a whole. To see this unique identity swallowed up by mass-scale urbanisation would be to lose something irreplaceable. The suggested plans, although lacking detail, indicate that our village could double in size. This is simply unsustainable. Our roads—including London Road, Hartford Road, and the various narrow lanes that weave through the village—are already under strain. Community spaces are limited and treasured. The green belt and surrounding natural environment offer biodiversity, serenity, and an essential buffer from encroaching urban sprawl. We rely on them, not only for recreation, but for mental and physical wellbeing. The danger to life is not hypothetical—it's real. I have had several close calls with speeding vehicles while walking or cycling with my children through the village. We live with the constant anxiety that one day, someone won’t be so lucky. Introducing thousands more cars onto these roads without significant infrastructure investment would put even more lives at risk. Beyond the physical concerns lies something even more delicate: our community spirit. Davenham is a place where people know each other, help each other, and take pride in being part of something shared. Once this cohesion is diluted by unchecked expansion, we lose the very thing that makes Davenham special. This is not development—it’s erasure. We understand the government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new homes and the pressure facing Cheshire West to meet its share. But strategic development must be sensitive, balanced, and respect existing communities. Our Neighbourhood Plan—once a beacon of local empowerment—now appears powerless in the face of wider governmental mandates. That loss of autonomy stings deeply. I urge you to reconsider the impact this local plan will have on our village. Please listen to those of us who live here, raise families here, and have built our lives around its unique charm. Development should not come at the cost of community identity, public safety, or environmental integrity.

Comment

Representation ID: 508

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Historic England

I&O_591
Any option should be accompanied by a robust assessment of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting to inform the best solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 784

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Dave Bell

I&O_888
We cannot afford to lose the farmland we have it's no use having houses if we haven't enough food

Comment

Representation ID: 807

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Janet Gormley

I&O_911
None you are turning our villages into one big town. We are loosing our character, our beautiful countryside. They advertise new houses and say “ come and live in the beautiful village surrounded by Cheshire countryside “ but soon they will not be able to say this, it will be “ come and live in this town surrounded by another town”  

Comment

Representation ID: 842

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Andrew Oliver

I&O_946
Building in and around Northwich is excessive. Profit before people as usual.

Comment

Representation ID: 871

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Dale

I&O_975
The northern most part (approx 25% of site) of NOR 11 is unsuitable for development as it is separated from the rest of the area by landform - a step in the valley side with an average 1:3 slope and fall of 15 -20m. This part of the site lies within the weaver Valley Landscape Character Area and because of topography is disconnected from the rest of the site. NOR 12 lies entirely within the weaver Valley Landscape Character Area and while it is not within the ASCV, development here would have a significantly adverse impact on the ASCV and be totally out of character with both Weaverham and Barnton. Both of these villages lie above Weaver Valley on the surrounding "Cheshire Plain" (Undulating Enclosed Framland Character areas 5b and 5d). There are also highway issues with this location as the most direct route to the village centre and services is Church Street, which is a very narrow road with on street parking.

Comment

Representation ID: 881

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Angela Capstick

I&O_985
Growth needs be suitable for the infrastructure to avoid traffic congestion/pollution from residents needing to travel to schools/shops/dr's etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 898

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Jill Darlington

I&O_1002
NOR 06 and 07 are not sustainable for transport and education, negatively impacting residents already.   

Comment

Representation ID: 928

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Vicky Goodall

I&O_1032
Ensure that the site chosen has the least environmental damage to nature. I.e - 2 smaller sites rather than one large site is better as its easier for wildlife to relocate and maintains wildlife channels (leading to less badger crossings on roads for example).

Comment

Representation ID: 940

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Dee Rowan

I&O_1044
Enough is enough! Surgeries, schools, roads, environment, noise, disruption etc - these amongst many others HAVE to be taken seriously.

Comment

Representation ID: 1002

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Shaun Roche

I&O_1107
Outrageous. Housing should predominantly be built on brown field sites not green field or virgin land. There is plenty of sites within Northwich that could be developed without the need to destroy the countryside for ever.

Comment

Representation ID: 1026

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Metcalfe

I&O_1131
NOR01 - Would need significant infrastructure upgrade around the road network into Northwich as the existing bridge in Barnton is not suitable. NOR06 - Far to large an area for the village of Davenham, will totally destroy the character of the village as the area is larger than the existing village. Davenham itself has inadequate infrastructure at present. NOR07 - Access to the A556 would cause significant traffic issues in Davenham as direct access from NOR07 to the A556 wouldn't be practical given the geography of the area. NOR12 - No direct access to significant roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 1057

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Turner

I&O_1162
Not Moulton we have already had three developments approved

Comment

Representation ID: 1068

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Jenny Day

I&O_1173
Areas below the green belt identified for development are still green areas. Why aren't more brownfield and greyfield sites identified in these plans?

Comment

Representation ID: 1215

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Milnes

I&O_1320
Growth must be tied to road structure; Northwich already has issues with roads becoming grid-locked.

Comment

Representation ID: 1228

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Woodburn

NOR 07 & NOR 08
I&O_1333
I wish only the following comments, specifically regarding land in the Local Plan for Davenham. The 2 proposed areas of land of concern NOR08 and NOR07.  These are both areas off the existing farm track at end of Eaton Lane, Davenham.  Comments for note please:   - this area is not supported by any infrastructure or access roads, and there is little or no scope to create access direct to the main Chester Road other than using the existing Eaton Lane. That is not fit for any significant increase in housing.   - the existing Eaton Lane is much used by many residents for walking, cycling, running, dog walking etc. It therefore provides a significant contribution to the wellbeing of many in the village and beyond Davenham. That should not be underestimated, nor should it be impacted or ruined by development.   - this side of Davenham, including Hartford Road and the entry to the village centre is at saturation point in terms of traffic already. The village centre, even with the bypass cannot cope at busy times. Significant infrastructure developments would be needed and that won’t happen or be sufficient.   - included in the above is Davenham primary school, just offf Hartford Road. That could not cope and such an increase in traffic would make it even more unsafe than current.   - further houses of similar size and value to what exists in Davenham will NOT address the issues of housing availability for young people. Those type of houses are simply out of range to the majority of under 30s and any large numbers of affordable homes would not align with existing developments in the village.   I would urge CWAC to consider the following: - huge numbers of empty property and business units in Northwich town centre. These could be easily converted to affordable housing / flats without the need for infrastructure which is already there (utilities, sewerage, roads etc)   Regards, Chris Woodburn

Comment

Representation ID: 1241

Received: 04/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Navin

SS 30
I&O_1346
Hi I am responding to the proposed development planning for Weaverham I am aware there are three proposed areas:   NOR10 Weaverham south which I assume is the proposed building on the back of Keepers Lane/Wallerscote Road? NOR11 Weaverham West - West of Sandy Lane NOR 12 Weaverham North - North of Farm Road I tried to comment using the QR code but I found the document really complicated and couldn't work out how to record my objections so please take my email as my registration of my thoughts, opinions and objections. I am aware you have to build on one area, the LEAST viable option  is the land off Wallerscote Road behind Keepers Lane as Beech Hill Wood, an ancient woodland, backs directly onto this field (proposed housing development site.) As you will be aware, ancient woodlands in the UK are protected, recognised as irreplaceable habitats under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which means any proposed development must avoid harming them, or mitigate and compensate only as a last resort, and as there are two other alternative sites for Weaverham, building here would make it the least viable option. Local planning authorities must consider ancient woodland when assessing development proposals. The NPPF gives them equal weight to built heritage. There are many ancient oaks, the boundary on the proposed map goes under the canopy of these trees which will damage the roots and having spoken to the Woodland Trust for advice, residents will be applying for Tree Preservation Orders on these oaks lining the field due to their age.   Beech Hill Wood is rich in biodiversity. Its canopy dominated by beech, ancient oaks, and ash, with holly and yew forming a shadowed sub-layer. The ground is carpeted in dog’s mercury, anemones, wild garlic and native bluebells, and woodland herbs like sanicle and ramsons. There are bird’s-nest orchid, yellow bird’s-nest, cuckoo pint and archangel amongst other species. A host of birds including different types of owls, woodpeckers, (Greater Spotted, Lesser Spotted and rare Green Woodpecker) The Lesser Spotted Woodpecker being the rarest resident woodpecker in the UK a having suffered a dramatic decline, with three out of four pairs lost since the 1970's and as a result they are on the Red List for conservation concern. Cuckoos, Great, Blue and coal tits, treecreepers, owls and a host of other bird species nest in the woods. Badgers, foxes , water voles, rabbits, grass snakes, frogs, hares, toads live in the understorey, as well as a host of insects including butterflies, which are in decline. All of these species have been spotted in the field of the proposed building. Most notably the woodland is home to Great Crested Newts, and rare bats. As  you will be aware, Great Crested Newts and Bat habitats are strictly protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 listed in schedule 5 which makes it an offence to amongst others, damage, destroy or obstruct access to their breeding sites or resting places and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 gives them European Protected Species EPS status, it is illegal to disturb actions that impair their breeding, rest, hibernation and migration. The presence of these rare species is noted in the house deeds. Some residents have also contacted the Woodland Trust for advice who actively campaign to strengthen protections which threaten many ancient woodlands. They have requested the measurements for the Oak girths. The road for the proposed entrance to the estate is a rural stretch is often slick with mud and manure from nearby fields, making it treacherous in wet weather. With narrow lanes, poor lighting, and blind bends that catch both drivers and pedestrians off guard, the area poses real safety concerns. The pavement for the length of the road is on one side of the road only, very thin and has overgrown hedges overhanging so pedestrians have to walk onto the road to pass. It is unusable for wheelchair users and difficult for those with prams/pushchairs or mobility issues. This may well be a route for school children who do will not necessarily have a place at a local school and need to walk out of the village and for cyclists going to work. The increased traffic will also have a negative impact on an already dangerous route. I have taken a photo in mid afternoon on a monday showing the overgrown perilous hedges and plants that necessitate you stepping on the road to pass. Please see attached The proposed estate will also impact the view of the houses on Keepers Lane, some of which have in their deeds that they paid more extra money for their houses for the view. The residents of Keepers Lane are also going to be having their lives impacted by the noise and dust/dirt from the Lime Beds Solar Farm Project. Due to the topography, with the site being elevated and open to prevailing winds, truck movement noise, loose materials during construction (like dust, gravel, or insulation fragments) will travel the short distance. This will not impact the residents living in NOR 11 and NOR 12.  The most viable proposed developments  are NOR 11 West of Sandy Lane and NOR 12 North of Farm Road as it they open fields and former agricultural land. There is the least impact to wildlife and to residents as there are less houses backing onto it and they do not have ancient woodland behind them. Please can you reply to my email to let me know that my points have been added to the local plan consultation   Thank you for your time Kindest regards Victoria and Tom Navin (Keepers Lane)

Comment

Representation ID: 1242

Received: 04/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Beech

SS 30
I&O_1347
I am writing to formally object to the proposed residential development of 96 dwellings at Beach Farm, Wallerscote Road, Weaverham, and the 200 dwellings proposed at Sandy Lane, Weaverham. These, along with other potential sites, represent a serious and unacceptable threat to the Green Belt, public safety, local biodiversity, and existing infrastructure. They demonstrably conflict with both national and local planning policies and undermine the sustainable development of our community. My specific grounds for objection are as follows: Green Belt Violation and Landscape Harm: The proposed sites at both Wallerscote Road (Beach Farm) and Sandy Lane lie within the designated Green Belt, where development should only be permitted under very exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional justification has been demonstrated in these applications. Building on these sites would result in the permanent erosion of open countryside, compromise the distinct character of Weaverham, and directly contradict the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly paragraph 138. The irreversible loss of this open space would set a damaging precedent for further development in the area. Furthermore, the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) policy N1 explicitly states that "The Green Belt around Northwich will be maintained," and the current "Regulation 18 Issues and Options" consultation for the new Local Plan includes "Option A: Retain Green Belt," indicating the Council's continued commitment to this protection. Unsafe and Inadequate Access and Highway Impact: The proposed access arrangements for both Wallerscote Road and Sandy Lane are inherently unsafe and inadequate for developments of this scale. Wallerscote Road:  This road is already heavily trafficked, narrow in parts, and has limited pavement space, making it unsuitable for a significant increase in vehicle movements. The proposed access for 96 dwellings, situated within a 40mph zone on a poorly maintained and geometrically problematic stretch of road, raises serious highway safety concerns. Sandy Lane (NOR11):  While two potential access points are suggested (near Station Road/Mere House and a mid-point on Sandy Lane), the cumulative traffic from 200 dwellings (and potentially more, as discussed in Point 7) will significantly impact the local road network. There is no safe pedestrian access into either site for vulnerable users, nor are dedicated cycle lanes proposed. This directly conflicts with Policy ENV7 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan and the Manual for Streets guidance on safe, inclusive design. Emergency and refuse vehicles may also face difficulty entering or turning within the sites due to gradient and road width constraints, putting residents at risk. Any approval must require significant road widening to 7.3m and the provision of footways for both frontages, along with consideration for dedicated cycle lanes. Breach of Local Bylaws and Policy Protections: These developments risk breaching local bylaws or protective designations affecting existing hedgerows, mature trees, and vital wildlife corridors. They may also violate conditions under the Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment, which discourages development on ridgelines or in open field settings. Additionally, there is concern regarding any relevant Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) or historic landscape protections that may apply to the boundaries or access points of Beach Farm and Sandy Lane. A comprehensive legal and ecological review must be undertaken to assess these potential breaches before any approval is considered. Severe Infrastructure and Services Overcapacity: Existing local infrastructure and services, including schools, GP surgeries, public transport networks, and drainage systems, are already demonstrably overstretched and operating at or beyond capacity. These applications provide no credible, comprehensive plan to address these critical limitations. This development would place a disproportionate and unsustainable burden on underfunded local services, severely undermining the quality of life for both existing and future residents of Weaverham. Sewerage and Storm Water:  Fundamental questions remain unanswered. Does the current foul water treatment plant have sufficient capacity for the additional discharge from potentially hundreds of new homes? Do current storm water drainage installations have sufficient capacity, particularly with discharge into the River Weaver near Sandy Lane Equestrian Centre? Is upgrading required for the sewerage system leading to the treatment plant, or is a new piped network off-site necessary? What specific discharge controls will be implemented to manage storm water volumes and run-off time-of-concentration? Will any off-site storm water drainage works be required, including approach roads and wayleaves? Utility Services:  All essential utility services (communications, water, gas, electricity) would draw from existing installations. The applications fail to detail what upgrading and cost-sharing will be expected from developers to ensure sufficient capacity and prevent disruption to existing residents. How will consequential off-site utility disruption during construction and connection be accommodated? Community Professionals and Services:  The Local Plan and these proposals lack any tangible consideration for the needs of the community regarding the provision of essential professionals such as doctors, nurses, teachers, and healthcare workers, or even skilled tradespeople like plumbers, electricians, joiners, and bricklayers. The loss of local educational establishments like Mid Cheshire College, now subsumed into Winsford and Warrington, highlights a historical failure in urban planning to maintain valuable local resources. Educational Capacity:  There is no estimate of the additional number of children these developments would introduce, nor a clear assessment of the requirements for school places. Are existing educational establishments sufficient, or will physical construction be required? If so, is a budget allocated and secured from the developers? Exacerbated Surface Water and Flood Risk: Both the Wallerscote Road site and Sandy Lane are known to have pre-existing issues with drainage and increased flood risk downstream. Notably, properties along Sandy Lane in Weaverham are identified as being at risk of flooding from the River Weaver, as reported in local news and flood warning information. Construction on this scale would significantly increase impermeable surfaces, exacerbating surface water run-off and potentially displacing water into nearby homes and public highways, leading to increased flooding incidents and putting existing properties at greater risk. Significant Wildlife and Biodiversity Loss: These developments would result in the destruction of mature hedgerows, established trees, and vital habitats that support legally protected species, including bats, nesting birds, badgers, and hedgehogs. The applications fail to present convincing biodiversity mitigation strategies or demonstrate how a net gain in biodiversity would be achieved, which is a fundamental requirement for sustainable development. Cumulative Overdevelopment and Unsustainable Sprawl: With significant large-scale developments already approved or underway in Winnington (as referenced in Local Plan (Part Two) policy N1 regarding Winnington Urban Village), and the proposals for Wallerscote Road (96 dwellings) and Sandy Lane (200 dwellings), Weaverham is facing an unsustainable pattern of piecemeal sprawl. The Barratt proposals for NOR11 (Sandy Lane area) alone involve 20.3 acres (8.2ha) for 200 homes (density 24 per ha), with a stated intent to enhance biodiversity, reflect local character, and provide accessible green spaces. However, the NOR11 allocation in the Local Plan is about twice this area, potentially accommodating up to 400 homes. Similarly, NOR10 could potentially accommodate 400-500 houses, and NOR12 a further 400 houses. These potential figures, based on the proposed density, far exceed Weaverham's proportional share of the national housing target (approximately 150 extra dwellings over 4-5 years for a settlement of 6,500 people). There is no evidence of strategic infrastructure support to accommodate the massive cumulative impact of these developments. Approving these applications would exacerbate existing pressures on local services and infrastructure, leading to a severe decline in the overall quality of life for residents across the wider area. Conflict with Emerging Local Plan (Regulation 18 Issues and Options): The Beach Farm site and the broader NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12 areas are not allocated for housing within "Plan A" (the "Regulation 18 Issues and Options" document) of Cheshire West and Chester Council's emerging Local Plan. This emerging plan explicitly recognises that Weaverham, as part of the Northwich settlement area, has already absorbed a sufficient quantum of housing development and aims to safeguard its character. These speculative applications directly undermine the Council's plan-led approach to development and its strategic vision for the area, which explicitly seeks to avoid "speculative development that could have a negative effect on our communities and the environment." Granting approval would set a dangerous precedent, weakening the integrity of the planning process and the future development framework. Eradication of Village Character:  The cumulative impact of these multiple proposed development sites (Wallerscote Road, Sandy Lane, and the potential scale of NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12) threatens to fundamentally eradicate the distinct "village" character of Weaverham. The Local Plan (Part Two) policy N1 states that the "character and individuality of the settlements that form the wider built-up area of Northwich [which includes Weaverham] will be safeguarded." This relentless expansion, without adequate green infrastructure or strategic planning, will lead to the urbanisation of what is currently a charming and identifiable village. The loss of its unique identity would be irreversible, transforming Weaverham into an undifferentiated extension of urban sprawl, diminishing its appeal and the quality of life for its residents, mirroring the concerns seen in other local villages like Hartford and Cuddington, creating an enormous sprawl of housing. Deficiencies in Local Plan Accessibility and Transparency: The Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan, in its current form, is poorly constructed and virtually inaccessible to the average citizen. Its lack of comprehensive indexing and cross-referencing to relevant sections makes it impossible to gain a comprehensive overview. The substandard site maps and poorly presented embedded links severely restrict citizen participation in the planning process. Documents of this type and complexity require a properly indexed hierarchy of links and options to ensure transparency and enable effective public engagement, which is currently lacking. Demands for Section 106 Agreements and Area-Wide Improvements: Given the significant increase in traffic and the disruption caused by these developments, CWAC must require robust Section 106 agreements. These agreements must, at a minimum, include: Road Resurfacing and Reconstruction:  This must extend along the entire frontage of the sites, including the junction of Station Road / B5144 at the Hanging Gate and the junction of B5144 / High Street, with surfacing or reconstruction for a minimum of 40m to 50m into the linking roads. CWAC must also require attention to be paid to improve access out of Sandy Brook Lane, given its effective crossroads with Hanging Gate Court. Village Centre Amenities:  Given the potential 7% increase in the existing settlement population from the Barratt development alone, area-wide improvements are warranted. A Section 106 Agreement should secure developer contributions for improvements to amenities in the village centre, covering the avenue of shops on Northwich Road, reconstruction of frontage roads, and the reconstruction of the car park to the rear (with appropriate arrangements for this private road/car park). A review of the condition of the High Street (footways, kerbs, potholes) is also required to prolong its useful life. Incidental Measures:  An area-wide assessment is warranted to identify and fund incidental measures to accommodate the potential increase in dwellings across all proposed sites. For the comprehensive reasons outlined above, I urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to refuse these planning applications. The proposed developments are unsustainable, inappropriate for their locations, and would cause irreversible harm to the local environment, infrastructure, and community character. CWAC must be proactive in securing the best outcome and maximum utility for the residents of Weaverham, who expect a proper return on their investment in local governance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1465

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Sara Summers Muir

I&O_1570
Any proposed growth around Northwich lacks demonstrated capacity for essential services. Before any allocations, the Council must publish assessments of transport capacity, GP/dental provision, school places, and flood risk and set out firm delivery/mitigation commitments.  

Comment

Representation ID: 1513

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Glover

I&O_1621
Employment should be priority, get people in to work. Once working, more people might be interested or be in a position to consider the housing market.

Comment

Representation ID: 1557

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Majella Davies

I&O_1665
Also the sites identified include area's of risk of flooding or on land that servesan important function in mitigating local flood risks.  Any developments here would increase surface water run off and impact local watercourses.   Also there would be a loss of biodiversity & greenbelt land, contrary to sustainability objectives. I am aware of planning applications & interest from developer's that are more aligned with the scale & character of our village.  These include a current application submitted by Wain Estates  and a pre application  from Stonhams and a small development at Bostock Green collectively involving around 200 dwellings.  These proposals would be more proportionate to Davenhams capacity & infrastructure and would be more likely to receive support provided they are delivered with appropriate design, infrastructure investment & sensitivity to the village setting. For all the above reasons, i would urge Cheshire West & 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: 1564

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Robina Gration

I&O_1672
NOR01 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 the existing village facilities. It would have minimal impact on the surrounding landscape and would provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as Local Plan requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1567

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Gration

I&O_1675
NOR01 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 the existing village facilities. It would have minimal impact on the surrounding landscape and would provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as Local Plan requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1569

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Powell

I&O_1677
as a local resident of the 20 years I strictly object the new houses building in Davenham due to : -  crested newts' natural areas of habitation are to be disturbed, they are unique to our area! - the green fields surrounding the village are used for the pastures, those which are planned for the construction are prone to floods and waterlogs, blocking the roads with the rain overspills, the potential buyers are not informed about the yearly situation!!! - Davenham Primary school after the expansion CAN NOT digest  new pupils, the same the Moulton school! - Again , the potential house buyers ARE NOT AWARE of the situation!!! There is no infrastructure to feed the new houses, one convenience shop with the limited carpark! - Roads are of the modest capacities, the job traffic is terrible already, with the overspilling traffic it take about 25-40 minutes to travel through the village instead of 6 minutes, if there is a road works, the collapse lasts longer! The Spar fuel truck visits cause traffic jams weekly. -Our Local Plan was agreed few years ago, but now the government plans another extensive construction in our village, destroying our decision and principles of the democracy!!! You are trying to deface our village which fought for the RURAL AREA STATUS and obtained it !!! THE LOCAL OPINION IS NO!!! TO THE PLANNING CONTRUCTIONS!!!

Comment

Representation ID: 1587

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Merrill

NOR06
I&O_1696
I strongly object to the planning NOR06 davenham, as this is good guality farm land which is integral to the success of the farm business. Taking that land would half the acreage of the farm and make the business collapse and cause unemployment, apart from that, the family who own the land DO Not want to sell  it. Whoever has put this proposal forward is totally out of line and has not even contacted the land owners before hand. I want it taken out of the proposed area with immediate affect. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1589

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Davies

NOR01-NOR07
I&O_1699
I am a  resident of Davenham Village and  I feel I need to give my opinion and concerns over the proposed development of Northwich & surrounding area's.  I feel the impact of all these houses in Davenham and Bostock is huge in relation to traffic,schools and the environment.   There is very little capacity in the schools in Davenham, Moulton & Leftwich at present and it is the same with the colleges i.e John Deanes and at Winsford.  The problem with Davenham is the transport limitations, the village gets really busy already so any extra traffic to the village would be just terrible. Also there are no train stations in the village and the nearest one is several miles away and also the bus service to Winsford & Crewe is hourly but goes the long way around so not really suitable for those who would commute to work. There are no surgeries or dentists in Davenham and therefore any new residents would have to travel to Northwich , Winsford or Kingsmead which would increase the number of car journey's and the surgeries could not cope with the demand.  There is alot of high grade farmland, two rivers and substantial  area's of broadleaf woodland. The proposed development would take away valuable agricultural land. The village of Davenham & Church Street conservation area's would be harmed by large new developments.  I really think the council should give consideration to the following area's: NOR10 : Weaverham  - this area already has the infrastructure and the capacity to accommodate further planned growth and to deliver a mix of housing and has a good access to the A49. NOR08: Land adjoining the A556 opposite Hartford where here development would benefit from transport links A556.   Further regeneration of Northwich Town Centre where Brownfield land and underused Commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable mix use housing development should be considered together with further expansion of Winnington Village. NOR01: although this area has currently been identified as a green belt site,  the expansion to the North East of Barton should be considered due to its proximity to major transport links A559 & access to the existing village facilities.  It would have minimal impact on surrounding landscape.  It would also provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing as per the local plan requirements. NOR06 -NOR07: Davenham is a historic village and has a strong sense of identity & designated Conservation Area.  The proposed development 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 the development proposed is entirely disproportionate to the village size and setting. Davenham village is already operating at or near capacity.   The road network especially A556, Hartford Rd and London Road suffer heavy congestion already & further development woukd exacerbate traffic, air quality & safety concerns which is very worrying. Public transport provision at present is minimal and additional residents would place unsustainable pressure on the limited local bus service.  Also the sites identified include area's of risk of flooding or on land that servesan important function in mitigating local flood risks.  Any developments here would increase surface water run off and impact local watercourses.   Also there would be a loss of biodiversity & greenbelt land, contrary to sustainability objectives.  I am aware of planning applications & interest from developer's that are more aligned with the scale & character of our village.  These include a current application submitted by Wain Estates  and a pre application  from Stonhams and a small development at Bostock Green collectively involving around 200 dwellings.  These proposals would be more proportionate to Davenhams capacity & infrastructure and would be more likely to receive support provided they are delivered with appropriate design, infrastructure investment & sensitivity to the village setting. For all the above reasons, i would urge Cheshire West & 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: 1591

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Dewsbury

I&O_1701
Question 30 The map which currently identifies the ‘Green Belt’ appears to be a line identifying all north of that line as ‘Green Belt’ but south of that line is not included even though a significant area is ‘Greenfield’ and countryside.  How was that particularly area designated to the detriment of the area south of that line. As this area defined as ‘Greenfield’ is a large rural area then conservation should also be taken into consideration as an important factor to the community.

Comment

Representation ID: 1594

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Woodburn

I&O_1704
NOR01, although this is current green belt this should be considered due to proximity to A559 an other transport links. It would have minimal environmental impact and would suit a mix of housing as required by the Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 1601

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Barry Dixon

NOR 11
I&O_1711
Dear Sirs,   I have tried to access the Local Plan portal and address those questions that you posed. I am not confident that you will review and acknowledge my submittal properly so I am submitting them again by this email.   My comments and questions are focused on the housing proposals for Northwich and particularly Weaverham. My comments and questions cover a number policies and are to be read as a whole and not limited by your restrictive formulation.   Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Local Plan Review July 2025 as it affects Northwich and in particular Weaverham   This submission is made by Barry Dixon of 8 Forest Street, Weaverham CW8 3EY   I have reviewed the documentation posted on the CWAC web site and with assistance of others I have been able to review other related documents including a letter from Barratt. The Local Plan prepared by CWAC is poorly constructed and virtually inaccessible. It is not comprehensive in its indexing and cross-referencing to relevant sections, such that it cannot readily be viewed to be certain that I have gained a comprehensive overview. It has substandard site maps and embedded links are poorly presented. Documents of this type and complexity require a properly indexed hierarchy of links and options. This therefore restricts citizen participation. I have reviewed it for the relevant part for Weaverham and specifically to the Plans reference to NOR10, NOR11 and NOR12. I will confine my specific points to NOR11 as we have the Barratt statement of intent, but they are equally applicable to the other two sites in Weaverham. Barratt proposals are: 20.3 acres [ = 8.2ha] 200 homes [density 24 per ha] 30% affordable houses [60 number?] Enhance bio-diversity Homes to reflect local character Accessible green spaces In total the NOR11 proposal is about twice the area of the Barratt site so that NOR11 could potentially accommodate up to 400 homes. In a similar manner NOR10 could potentially accommodate up to 400 to 500 houses and NOR12 in the order of a further 400 houses, these are assumptions based on the density of development proposed by Barratt. These are of course potentials and not all will be required in the same time frame. But it is worthy of note that the current government proposes 1,500,000 new homes across the UK (over their 5year plan) and given the size of the current Weaverham settlement (about 6,500 people) that would equate to 150 extra dwellings on a proportionality basis, in Weaverham over the next 4 to 5 years. It is also worth noting that the government is only running at a 60% success rate!   Additional to the three sites in the Local plan we are led to understand of an additional proposal off Wallerscote Road. This is understood to be for 96 dwellings with a housing density similar to the Barratt development of about 24 per ha. Of note from the indicative site layout a sizable area is set-aside so the density could be up to 27/29 units per ha. How the LA will consider this is open to debate but as it is outside the Local Plan and in a 40mph zone on a badly maintained and potentially geometrically problematic stretch of road, significant Section 106 impositions will be required that could render the proposal a non-starter.   Now to my questions: Does the current sewerage (foul water) treatment plant have sufficient capacity to take the additional discharge? The storm water discharge would go into the River Weaver at a point near to Sandylane Equestrian Centre. Do current drainage installations have sufficient capacity or is upgrading required? Is there spare capacity in the sewerage system leading to the treatment plant or is a new piped network required off-site to the treatment plant? For new installations do any applicants have way leaves or agreements over land that they do not control? What discharge control will be necessary to keep storm water volumes in the current accepted time-of-concentration for run-off? Will any works be required for off-site storm water drainage related works? Approach roads and wayleaves? Utility services for communications, water supply, gas supply and electricity supply would all come from current installations within the current settlement area. What upgrading and cost sharing will be expected from developers. How will consequential off-site utility disruption be accommodated? For vehicular access. For NOR11 there are two potential points of access; 1. At Station Road at a point between Mere House access and the access to the substantial residence after the access to Hanging Gate. The distance between these two existing junctions is about 80m and as this is in a 30MPH zone it should not be problematical. On Sandy Lane a mid-point access would be easy to accommodate and perhaps an adjustment to the limits of the speed controls. Would CWAC require attention to be paid to improve the assess out of Sandy Brook Lane, bearing in mind that this is effectively a crossroad with Hanging Gate Court? For both frontages to the road network widening to 7.3m and footways will be required. Are any provisions being considered for a cycle lane?