Comment

Representation ID: 12407

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Bonnie Nancollis

I&O_12924
I write regarding the option of developing land in Davenham for new housing, specifically options  NOR06 - NOR07  . 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 development proposed 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.  Currently, when walking my child to Davenham primary school, along Hartford Road, we are stepping off the sloping, narrow pavement into the road at points as we try to get past cars parked across the pavement. This is not safe and increasingly the flow of volume of traffic on the road will only make it more dangerous for the kids walking to and from school. As it is,  Hartford Road relies on courteous drivers, acknowledging the road is only one car width wide when cars are parked on the road, flashing each other through bottlenecks. If the volume of traffic on Hartford road increased this would cause major distribution and traffic jams. Public transport provision is minimal (hence the already high number of cars), and additional residents would place unsustainable pressure on limited local bus services.  I have also recently observed the local bus on Hartford road block the road as it couldn't fit between parked cars. The sites identified include areas at risk of flooding or on land that serves an important function in mitigating local flood risk. Eaton lane has already suffered flooding as a result of new housing developments being built in the local area. This flooding created traffic disruption.  Any development here would increase surface water run-off and impact local watercourses. Furthermore, there would be a loss of biodiversity and greenfield land, contrary to sustainability objectives.   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: 12428

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Rogers

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_12945
Proposed Housing Areas NOR10, NOR11, NOR12 Additional to the 3 sites identified in the plan, I’m led to believe there are another 96 houses planned Off Wallerscote Road, Weaverham. Weaverham is a rural Community, the roads and infrastructure are insufficient now. Mobile phone reception poor with all providers. Flooding with minor rainfall, poor drainage and roads

Comment

Representation ID: 12467

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr George Nickless

I&O_12984
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), and access to existing village facilities. 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. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12471

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Newman

I&O_12988
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: 12479

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vicky and Michael Mainwaring

I&O_12996
- Additional to the 3 sites identified in the plan, I’m led to believe there are another 96 houses planned Off Wallerscote Road, Weaverham.  - Weaverham is a rural Community, the roads and infrastructure are insufficientnow. - Mobile phone reception poor with all providers. - Flooding with minor rainfall, poor drainageand roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 12484

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Christ

I&O_13001
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding Weaverham village. (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12) As a long-standing resident of Weaverham, I am strongly against the proposed development, I feel that this would have a negative and detrimental impact on our village and community .This is for many reasons. The first and most obvious being the complete lack of infrastructure to facilitate the amount of people that would be moving into our village. Currently ,we have only one Doctors surgery (Weaverham surgery) with five GPS,  three GP partners and two that are salaried. There is one senior practice nurse and one practice nurse, and currently one respiratory nurse.The.The population of Weaverham is around 7000,and according to CQC, Weaverham surgery currently has between 7,412 and 8.000 patients. The surgery not only serves Weaverham community ,but also Sandiway,Cuddington, Crowton, and Hartford. With only proposals for housing development and no mention of infrastructure, i find this to be not only extremely alarming, but also considerably neglectful to our existing community. With the surgery and schools already full to capacity,  [REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION] I strongly feel that without the proper infrastructure in place, bringing more people into the community on this scale, will only exacerbate the situation, and the crisis we are all already facing. I am also very concerned of the impact of building on greenbelt land. This would have a very detrimental effect on our environment, community and way of life. Our greenbelt land provides essential habitats for our wildlife and preserves the unique character and feel of our community and village. Developing on our greenbelt land, would lead to irreversible loss of these features..Further to this,i would like to add that station road Weaverham in particular,has taken its fair share of development over the past 5 years,with the hosuing estate behind the hanging gate, and also the properties at the end of station road (formerly Adamsons garage) which 5 years later,are still being built! In conclusion ,I would urge planning to consider all of the above ,and indeed to hear the concerns of our community before any consideration is given to this proposal.

Comment

Representation ID: 12496

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs C Watkin

I&O_13013
Visual Impact and Landscape The document highlights the need to protect and enhance “local character” and “landscape distinctiveness”—especially in edge-of-settlement growth areas—by requiring developments to respond appropriately to local landscape setting. The area north of Barnton is adjacent to established countryside and has not benefited from any detailed, published landscape/visual assessment in the growth options table or appendices, nor are buffer or mitigation requirements described.   Key point for objection: Development to the north of Barnton risks significant, unmitigated harm to rural character and views, particularly due to the lack of published design or screening strategies at this point in the Local Plan process.   Drainage, Flood Risk, and Water Management The Plan states that site-specific drainage and flood risk work is still in preparation. While it sets out principles for sustainable drainage (SuDS), there is currently no clarity for Barnton regarding capacity of existing drainage networks, ground conditions, or guarantees of surface water management, nor evidence that offsite impacts will be mitigated.   Key point for objection: Further allocation and consideration of this housing site is premature without a full understanding of drainage, groundwater, surface water implications, and clearly defined SuDS strategies.   In summery; While supporting the strategic aims of the Local Plan, we object to the allocation of housing to the north of Barnton due to unresolved and significant impacts in the following areas: • Existing and predicted transport congestion at critical local pinch points (Winnington Hill, Barnton Swing Bridge, A556/A530, and links to Gadbrook Park) have not been addressed in the Plan with site-specific solutions or promised funding, risking substantial harm to local amenity and air quality. • The Infrastructure Delivery Plan and utility assessments are outstanding; there is no reassurance that adequate network capacity, grid upgrades, or the infrastructure for heat pumps and electric vehicle charging will be in place to support this growth sustainably. • No detailed landscape/visual assessment has been published for this sensitive settlement edge. As such, the visual and rural character impacts on Barnton and its surroundings have not been measured or mitigated. • Critical information on drainage, surface water management, and flood risk is unavailable, making it impossible to confirm that new development can be integrated without increasing local flood risk or overloading drainage networks. • The Plan’s current growth tables and maps for Barnton provide no assurance that new or improved vehicle access and adequate highway solutions will be provided to prevent severe cumulative traffic impacts on both the immediate area and wider road network. For these reasons, the proposed allocation conflicts with the Local Plan’s own policy requirements for infrastructure-led, sustainable, and context-sensitive development. This approach evidences your objection using content and, crucially, the documented lack of detailed supporting evidence and mitigation on key themes that the Plan is meant to address.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12582

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ronald Jones

I&O_13099
Additional to the 3 sites identified in the plan, I’m led to believe there are another 96 houses planned Off Wallerscote Road, Weaverham. Weaverham is a rural Community, the roads and infrastructure are insufficient now. Mobile phone reception poor with all providers.

Comment

Representation ID: 12595

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Storey

NOR01
I&O_13112
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), and access to existing village facilities. 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

Comment

Representation ID: 12632

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Fran Tarry

NOR01
I&O_13149
I strongly object to the inclusion of NOR01 as a potential growth area around Northwich. Development of this agricultural land would severely impact the exisiting rural setting, impacting greenbelt and wildlife.  Traffic is already a a big problem for the area, with the link between Barnton and Winnington served by a single lane, one way swing bridge, which is not designed to cope with such volumes of traffic. Additional housing would only exacerbate this problem. It would also add to the huge pressure already facing local services in the area, including doctors and schools. Accessing services in the wider local area would add to existing congestion locals already face. The site forms part of the open setting of Northwich. Urbanising it would significantly harm local character. For these reasons, NOR01 is not a sustainable or appropriate site for development and should be removed from further consideration in the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 12664

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Tucker

NOR01
I&O_13181
NOR01 - Although green belt the expansion to the North east of Barton, as this has good transport links to the A559, it would have minimum impact on the surrounding landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 12672

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cathryn Hollingworth

I&O_13189
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the plan for new housing estates on green belt land around Barnton, Little Leigh and Anderton. I grew up in Barnton village and spent most of my childhood with friends playing in the fields and woods and now as an adult I still enjoy walking in those fields and woods on a daily basis, as do my children. To lose the green belt would be a tragedy for the local area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12716

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Parkin

I&O_13234
Some of the sites proposed for housing and employment will positively effect Northwich and its local community. But in order to attract residents and support this, new development work needs to be put into the town centre.  A lot of work has been done around events, markets etc which really make Northwich shine - but there are issues with Barons Quay and pockets of land which let the town down (brownfield land outside Sainsburys, run down car parks etc). 

Comment

Representation ID: 12721

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Davison

I&O_13239
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding Weaverham village. (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12) In answer to question SS 30-  While I understand the need for new housing, this particular proposal raises serious concerns about the impact on our already overstretched local infrastructure and services. The addition of potentially high numbers of new residents would place a significant burden on local amenities. Schools in the area are already at or near capacity, GP surgeries have long waiting times, and public transport options are limited and increasingly unreliable.  Our road network, particularly access routes into Northwich, via  Wallerscote Rd, leading onto Winnington Rd, is frequently congested and not designed to accommodate a sudden increase in traffic and is under further threat from the proposed Lime bed landfill project, which, if the project gets the go-ahead, will see hundreds of HGVs bringing landfill products along this route. Furthermore, the drainage and sewer systems are barely coping with current demands. Adding a development of this scale risks overwhelming essential utilities, increasing the risk of flooding or service disruption for existing residents. This proposal constitutes overdevelopment and, if approved, would seriously diminish the quality of life for current and future residents. I urge the council to reject this application and instead consider more sustainable and appropriately scaled developments that respect the limitations of our local infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 12733

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Jones

I&O_13251
We believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered We are also aware that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village 

Comment

Representation ID: 12744

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Liz McCauley

I&O_13262
Further regeneration of Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered  It is understood that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 12747

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Hamlett

I&O_13265
#NAME?

Comment

Representation ID: 12803

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Jones

I&O_13321
We believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered  We are also aware that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village 

Comment

Representation ID: 12813

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Watson

I&O_13331
Further regeneration of Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered It is understood that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 12824

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Wilson

I&O_13342
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich? The further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered.  TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village

Comment

Representation ID: 12831

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Davenham Royal British Legion Social Club

I&O_13349
Further regeneration of Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered It is understood that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 12834

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris and Zoe Hobley

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_13353
I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development allocations identified as NOR06 and NOR07 in the Local Plan consultation. Davenham is a historic village with a strong sense of identity and is designated as a Conservation Area. The scale of the proposed developments would fundamentally alter the rural character of the village, risk encroachment on heritage assets and open spaces that are deeply valued by the community, and impose a level of growth that is entirely disproportionate to the size and setting of the village. The existing infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity. The road network, particularly the A556, Hartford Road, and London Road, already suffers from heavy congestion. On a daily basis, we experience long queues and delays, and this has a direct impact on local families like ours just trying to get to work, school, or appointments. More housing here would make those problems far worse. Road safety is also a serious concern: many children walk and cycle through the village, and additional traffic would significantly increase the risks they face. Environmental concerns also cannot be overlooked. The proposed sites include areas at risk of flooding and land that serves an important function in mitigating flood risk. Any development would likely increase surface water run-off, impact local watercourses, and cause a loss of biodiversity and greenfield land – all of which is contrary to the Council’s own sustainability objectives. Losing this open land would also have a direct effect on residents’ quality of life, reducing access to green space and the sense of separation that makes Davenham feel like a village rather than an extension of Northwich. I am also aware of more proportionate proposals from developers that better reflect the scale and character of Davenham. Current applications, such as Wain Estates’ submission, Stonhams’ pre-application, and the smaller Bostock Green development (collectively around 200 dwellings), would be far more aligned with the village’s capacity and infrastructure. Such developments are more likely to gain local support provided they are designed appropriately, include proper infrastructure investment, and show sensitivity to the village setting. For these reasons, I urge the Council to reconsider the proposed development allocations within Davenham parish. Large-scale residential development in Davenham should be removed or significantly scaled back in the final Local Plan in favour of more proportionate, sustainable proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 12837

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Galloway

NOR01
I&O_13356
NOR01  - the area to the north east of Barnton should be considered - although currently green belt, it does have proximity to the A559 and existing village facilities.This would have limited impact on the surrounding area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12841

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Caroline Knox

I&O_13360
Further regeneration of Northwich town centre, with its brownfield land and under-used commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offers a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered.  In addition, as TATA have released more land in Winnington, this could easily see a further expansion of housing for Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 12844

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robert and Helen Heald

NOR01
I&O_13363
Another area for consideration should be NOR01 , which is to the North East of Barnton. It should be considered for its close proximity to the A559, which is a major transport link, and also for easy access to the facilities already existing in the village. This would provide the opportunity for a mixture of housing to fulfil the requirements of the local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 12862

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr J Hampson

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_13381
NOR07 and NOR07 are wholly inappropriate for development and should be excluded from consideration for the following reasons: Environmental impacts Biodiversity loss: Development would displace populations of bats, owls, swifts, swallows, hedgehogs, badgers, and other beneficial species, while encouraging non-native pests such as rats and grey squirrels. Beekeeping disruption: Eaton Lane supports a large apiary housing over 750,000 honeybees vital for local crop pollination (e.g. rapeseed). Development would reduce available forage and hinder access for beekeepers, threatening these essential colonies. Hedgerows and ancient woodland: Hedgerows and ancient/protected trees off Eaton Lane provide biodiversity corridors and contribute to the historic landscape. Their removal or damage would directly contravene the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Green Infrastructure Policy. Invasive species: Japanese Knotweed is well established less than 10m from the proposed site. Disturbance during development would accelerate spread, undermining structural safety of homes and creating long-term biosecurity risks. River Weaver pollution: Increased nutrient-rich runoff would degrade water quality and biodiversity in a river already designated for protection by the Environment Agency. Flooding risk: Eaton Lane and Hartford Road have already experienced serious flooding. Victorian drainage infrastructure has proven incapable of managing capacity, leading to raw sewage flooding neighbouring properties. Building on NOR07 would exacerbate these risks, especially as climate change increases the frequency of extreme rainfall. Rural economy Demolition of existing agricultural storage and disruption to rural businesses would directly erode the local economy. The Eaton Lane Caravan Park, advertised specifically for its countryside appeal, would suffer a major loss of business if the area’s rural character is destroyed. Village character and wellbeing Eaton Lane fields are regarded locally as vital countryside. Their development would erode the rural character of Davenham, undermining community identity and cohesion. Loss of open countryside, combined with noise pollution, air pollution from traffic (there is already an amber warning for pollution on Eaton Lane), and construction disruption, would damage the mental health and the physical wellbeing of residents, particularly vulnerable groups who depend on access to green space and existing public right of ways on Eaton Lane. Increased construction traffic and then the associated traffic from new residents will result in higher maintenance needs on existing homes, putting strain on resident’s time and finances to keep up with increased maintenance demand of existing properties Construction traffic will obliterate the health and well-being of residents, specifically in disturbing sleep (especially for those residents who work non-traditional hours) as well as put high construction traffic throughput onto Eaton Lane, Davenham at the exact time residents are commuting or making school runs with young children and dogs Infrastructure weaknesses Transport: Single-lane roads and cattle grids on Eaton Lane, as well as bottlenecks at T-junctions, and single-file routes on Hartford Road, Mount Pleasant, and London Road would be unable to support increased capacity and already suffer congestion. Adding up to 1,000+ daily vehicle movements would overwhelm capacity, impede emergency vehicles, and put residents, particularly the elderly and young children, at significant risk. Public services: GP surgeries, dentists, schools, and colleges are already over capacity. New development would push these beyond breaking point, reducing residents’ access to vital services. Public transport: No meaningful bus or rail options exist near Eaton Lane. All new residents would rely on cars, further overloading the A556—a route already beyond capacity. By contrast, areas such as Winnington Park and NOR10 are better positioned to integrate with existing infrastructure and deliver improve access into Northwich town centre. Visitor parking: Current provision is extremely limited. Development would isolate elderly and vulnerable residents who rely on visiting family, friends, and carers for social support. Hydrogen pipeline conflict: Land earmarked for NOR07 is already designated for the Blue Carbon/Net Zero hydrogen pipeline project, a nationally significant scheme. Housing development here would create direct conflict with this strategic infrastructure. Housing mix Housing delivered at NOR06/07/08 would not be affordable or social housing. Its remoteness from amenities and employment means it would serve only as commuter sprawl, failing to meet the urgent housing needs of local people. NOR07 and NOR06 (and to a lesser extent NOR08) must be firmly rejected. They are inappropriate because they: Consume high-quality agricultural land essential to both local and national food security. Lack sustainable access to services and would rely entirely on car travel, directly contradicting the aim of sustainable transport corridors. Fail to deliver the types of housing most urgently needed—social and affordable homes—offering no meaningful contribution to the housing crisis. Cause irreversible harm to biodiversity, the rural economy, and the distinctive character of the landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 12865

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr P Foden

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_13384
NOR07 and NOR07 are wholly inappropriate for development and should be excluded from consideration for the following reasons: Environmental impacts Biodiversity loss: Development would displace populations of bats, owls, swifts, swallows, hedgehogs, badgers, and other beneficial species, while encouraging non-native pests such as rats and grey squirrels. Beekeeping disruption: Eaton Lane supports a large apiary housing over 750,000 honeybees vital for local crop pollination (e.g. rapeseed). Development would reduce available forage and hinder access for beekeepers, threatening these essential colonies. Hedgerows and ancient woodland: Hedgerows and ancient/protected trees off Eaton Lane provide biodiversity corridors and contribute to the historic landscape. Their removal or damage would directly contravene the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Green Infrastructure Policy. Invasive species: Japanese Knotweed is well established less than 10m from the proposed site. Disturbance during development would accelerate spread, undermining structural safety of homes and creating long-term biosecurity risks. River Weaver pollution: Increased nutrient-rich runoff would degrade water quality and biodiversity in a river already designated for protection by the Environment Agency. Flooding risk: Eaton Lane and Hartford Road have already experienced serious flooding. Victorian drainage infrastructure has proven incapable of managing capacity, leading to raw sewage flooding neighbouring properties. Building on NOR07 would exacerbate these risks, especially as climate change increases the frequency of extreme rainfall. Rural economy Demolition of existing agricultural storage and disruption to rural businesses would directly erode the local economy. The Eaton Lane Caravan Park, advertised specifically for its countryside appeal, would suffer a major loss of business if the area’s rural character is destroyed. Village character and wellbeing Eaton Lane fields are regarded locally as vital countryside. Their development would erode the rural character of Davenham, undermining community identity and cohesion. Loss of open countryside, combined with noise pollution, air pollution from traffic (there is already an amber warning for pollution on Eaton Lane), and construction disruption, would damage the mental health and the physical wellbeing of residents, particularly vulnerable groups who depend on access to green space and existing public right of ways on Eaton Lane. Increased construction traffic and then the associated traffic from new residents will result in higher maintenance needs on existing homes, putting strain on resident’s time and finances to keep up with increased maintenance demand of existing properties Construction traffic will obliterate the health and well-being of residents, specifically in disturbing sleep (especially for those residents who work non-traditional hours) as well as put high construction traffic throughput onto Eaton Lane, Davenham at the exact time residents are commuting or making school runs with young children and dogs Infrastructure weaknesses Transport: Single-lane roads and cattle grids on Eaton Lane, as well as bottlenecks at T-junctions, and single-file routes on Hartford Road, Mount Pleasant, and London Road would be unable to support increased capacity and already suffer congestion. Adding up to 1,000+ daily vehicle movements would overwhelm capacity, impede emergency vehicles, and put residents, particularly the elderly and young children, at significant risk. Public services: GP surgeries, dentists, schools, and colleges are already over capacity. New development would push these beyond breaking point, reducing residents’ access to vital services. Public transport: No meaningful bus or rail options exist near Eaton Lane. All new residents would rely on cars, further overloading the A556—a route already beyond capacity. By contrast, areas such as Winnington Park and NOR10 are better positioned to integrate with existing infrastructure and deliver improve access into Northwich town centre. Visitor parking: Current provision is extremely limited. Development would isolate elderly and vulnerable residents who rely on visiting family, friends, and carers for social support. Hydrogen pipeline conflict: Land earmarked for NOR07 is already designated for the Blue Carbon/Net Zero hydrogen pipeline project, a nationally significant scheme. Housing development here would create direct conflict with this strategic infrastructure. Housing mix Housing delivered at NOR06/07/08 would not be affordable or social housing. Its remoteness from amenities and employment means it would serve only as commuter sprawl, failing to meet the urgent housing needs of local people. NOR07 and NOR06 (and to a lesser extent NOR08) must be firmly rejected. They are inappropriate because they: Consume high-quality agricultural land essential to both local and national food security. Lack sustainable access to services and would rely entirely on car travel, directly contradicting the aim of sustainable transport corridors. Fail to deliver the types of housing most urgently needed—social and affordable homes—offering no meaningful contribution to the housing crisis. Cause irreversible harm to biodiversity, the rural economy, and the distinctive character of the landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 12868

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Iain Knox

I&O_13387
In the first instance, Northwich town centre, especially opposite Barons Quay and other areas of brownfield/unused industrial land nearby. Development of these areas would improve the regeneration of the town centre, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for car journeys into town for shopping, amenities etc, whilst also reducing the destruction of greenfield areas so vital for rainwater soakaway, wildlife, air quality and so on. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12871

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Limara Hyde

I&O_13390
-We believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered  We are also aware that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village

Comment

Representation ID: 12889

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Dorothy Gamble

I&O_13408
There are no figures available regarding the current population of Davenham. The last Census in 2011 stated that there were 2745 people.  Since that time this has obviously increased considerably due to the building of homes within the area – as follows: 2017 Hilltop Grange, Davenham.  Builder: Stewart Milne Homes - 121 houses 2017 Church Street, Davenham.  Builder: Eaton Homes – 16 luxury homes. 2017 Wildings Croft, Fountains Lane, Davenham.  Building Bellway Homes – 70 houses (30% affordable homes). In January 2021 flooding occurred in Davenham: Davenham Meadows, Eaton Lane, Hartford Road as well as Hayhurst Marina, Shipbrook Road in Northwich etc. Reportedly some 134 incidents were reported.  It was felt that multiple culverts may have been compromised since some of the developments had been established. When these houses were built no further infrastructure was implemented at the time and the present infrastructure is under unsustainable pressure. Submitted Plans: 2024 /5 Davenham Farmland adjacent to Moulton.  Builder: Wain Estates – 70 dwellings Niddries Lane, Builder: MCI Developments – 120 affordable homes. We are also aware of a 72 bed Dementia Care Nursing Home which is currently working its way through the planning process.  When this is approved it will take land in NOR 06 (this Land is to the rear of Church Street and London Road and will increase traffic directly through the village by way of visitor’s, staff and suppliers. Developments in surrounding areas : 2014 Rose Meadows, London Road, Northwich. Builder: Bellway. 227 houses (Built on Flood Plain – flooded in 2019)  DUE TO CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES THE PROPERTIES DID NOT FLOOD.  HOWEVER, THE SURROUNDING AREAS WERE AFFECTED BY THE RUN-OFF FROM THE ESTATE AND DID FLOOD NORTHWICH. March 2025 Wakefield Court, Leftwich, Northwich.  Builder: Weaver Vale Housing Trust. 16 Affordable homes There has been an average of 400 homes built in nearby Hartford at Hartford Grange, Weaver Park, The Hollies and Manor Gardens by various builders such as Redrow, Thomas Jones Homes and Your Housing Group.  Between April 2018 and March 2023, 8306 new properties were built across the Borough.  Published strategy does not break down how many were in Davenham.