Comment

Representation ID: 12891

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Dorothy Gamble

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_13410
The identified sites include areas of flooding risk or on land that form an important function in alleviating flood risk. Developments in these areas would increase surface water run-off and have an adverse effect on local watercourses.  The subsequent loss of biodiversity and greenfield land is contrary to sustainability objectives.  NOR06 A known and designated conservation area is situated in the centre of NOR06. There are two working farms on this designated area and both of the landowners on either side of the Conservation Area have stated publicly that they have no intention of selling the farms. There is a long- established public footpath here that would need to be protected. A large sewage pipe runs across this land. The land falls steeply down to Elderbriar brook which would be flooded with substantial surface water. The area where it feeds into the River Dane has had a broad expanse of farmland flooded in recent years. The area is known for its diverse flora, fauna and ancient trees that are home to a diversity of birds. The areas are home to foxes, hedgehogs, bees etc. and they should be protected under existing wildlife and conservation regulations. NOR07 There has been serious flooding around the junction of Eaton Lane and Hartford Road below the site where NOR07 is proposed. This flooding entered people’s homes and necessitated some people having to evacuate their home.  Increased areas of tarmac and concrete from these proposed developments will intensify this known problem. An extra 440 houses would quite easily equate to over 800 cars and Eaton Lane could not deal with this volume of traffic. There are several businesses located in Eaton Lane i.e. a groundworks business, a working farm, a Caravan Club and recognised Camp Site and a small residential site – all of which would be severely impacted by any housing development. The farmland in Eaton Lane is considered to be in the top 10 in the UK regarding its condition for growing crops such as maize and Cheshire Potatoes. The land also contains numerous butterflies, bees, foxes, wood pigeons, buzzards, bats, owls, and badger sets (which are now protected by the present government). Cheshire Wildlife Trust are also in the process of identifying more wildlife corridors and Vale Royal Locks and the surrounding fields are in the scope for this. This land has been identified by Cadent as a proposed route for a future Hydrogen pipeline. This pipeline would almost certainly reduce the developable area and adds a further layer of risk that has not been adequately accounted for in the site assessment process.

Comment

Representation ID: 12907

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Storey

I&O_13426
  - 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: 12915

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Storey

I&O_13434
- 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: 12930

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barry Ruston

NOR01
I&O_13449
#NAME?

Comment

Representation ID: 12934

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Zoe Hobley

NOR06 & NOR07
I&O_13453
RE: NOR06 & NOR07 objection - I'm a resident that lives on Prospect Drive in Davenham and I have seen the potential building plans in the subject of this email. I would like to contest this idea as this well used area for the current village is the very reason all residents enjoy living here. The wildlife, peace and countryside feel is exactly what our families and children enjoy and frees us of mental health burdens. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12953

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Kirwin

I&O_13472
The land to the North of Barnton, in particular is valuable agricultural land and supports a large number of native birds, invertebrates, amphibians (a large population of toads) and mammals including protected species; brown Hare, bats, red list bird species (many of which breed and nest in the fields and hedgerows) including whimbrel, lapwing, skylark, grasshopper warbler, greenfinch, linnet and yellowhammer.  Many of the hedgerows contain ancient indicator plant species and mature trees. The loss of this greenbelt land would have a significant impact on the wildlife of Barnton and its surrounds. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12961

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Bottomley

I&O_13480
Whether land is designated green belt or not wholesale extended development leads to the loss of green spaces/farm land/ trees/ hedgerows etc. There are numerous small pocket development sites available both green and brown .Currently potential 12,000 dwelling on registered brown sites. This is to be encouraged and every effort should be made to get permission on sites not currently permissioned and if possible increase the register It is very difficult to provide new housing without creating a strain on infrastructure. Any new developments should have high on its list of requirements that people should have access to infrastructure without over burdening what is already in place. The Size of the potential new housing proposed for Davenham will have a negative impact on the feel of the village. With a potential doubling of size, its character and way of life will be adversely affected. Any expansion should be limited by existing plans to increase local housing by no more than 20% within Davenham There are villages such as Whitegate that has a need for small developments to a) allow local residents to down size from family homes and remain in the village. B) some starter homes to bring some young families into the village(s)

Comment

Representation ID: 12964

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Sutton

I&O_13483
We wish to comment on any proposal to build on the land that backs onto the odd-number houses on London Road, Mereheath, Davenham, part of the area ref NO6 shown on the local plan for potential growth areas. There has already been a huge increase in housing built in Davenham and Moulton with its attendant increase in traffic, which already causes congestion in the village centre that has double bends and crossroads. We have lived at no 557 London Road for some 40 years and know that the level of the field at the back of the property (part of area ref NO6) is much higher than the ground level at the front. We were advised that the height difference is 59" (1.49m). In practice, this slope means that very heavy or prolonged rain can result in a flow of water from the field into ours and our neighbours' gardens. Not severe flooding, but we've always been glad of that fields ability to soak up excess water. Any hard surfaces built on that field will prevent that happening, and could cause us to become flooded. We have no confidence whatsoever in any engineering solution such as an attenuation pond - one was built to take water from formerly flooded fields for the housing development behind the even-number houses on London Road and has never had a drop of water in it, instead very heavy rain now results in flooding on Hartford Road. There has been talk of a large housing development on the former ICI plant at Winnington which would obviously be better  environmentally than building on green field sites, plus, what of the land acquired for HS2 that will not now be used  ?  

Comment

Representation ID: 12987

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra O'Toole

I&O_13506
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: 12994

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Timms

I&O_13513
Objection to Proposed Development NOR01 of 1700 Houses Near Barnton Village - Support for Option A I am writing to formally and strongly object to the proposed plans (NOR01) to build approximately 1,700 houses on Green Belt land adjacent to Barnton Village. This proposed large-scale development will have a detrimental effect on the landscape and negatively impact the surrounding countryside and natural wildlife and habits. Reasons for my objection to the housing development proposal and for the land to remain Green Belt: Transport Infrastructure - Barnton village has already suffered from the large-scale development of neighbouring Winnington Village.  As a result of this development, the current transport infrastructure is already under extreme pressure due to overpopulation and insufficient road networks to the main town of Northwich.  Particularly due to the single swing bridge providing access to and from the village which is already unable to handle the additional volumes of traffic.  The proposed development of 1700 houses would cripple the transport infrastructure and cause gridlock in Barnton village, Winnington Village and Northwich. Environmental Impact & Loss of Natural Features - The green belt land proposed for the development would irreversibly and profoundly negatively impact the existing landscape which has an abundance of natural woodlands, hedgerows, trees, ponds, wildlife and habitats (foxes, badgers, bats, owls, newts, woodpeckers etc).  It would result in a loss of natural habitats, destroy biodiversity, destroy natural features and increase air & noise pollution.   Urban Sprawling and Loss of Openness - The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawling by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence !   The proposed development would encroach on beautiful open land and not adhere to this fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy. Visual Impact - the proposed area for development is visually beautiful, enjoyed by local residents (and those from surrounding areas) for walking, running and cycling.   This landscape is the backdrop to many existing properties, the building of 1700 new build houses will cause visual damage to the landscape - a prominent reason why many currently live there and visit the area.     Local amenities - Barnton Village is already under pressure from overpopulation, over-stretching access to existing amenities (doctors, dentist, schools, transport etc).  This will be compounded further by the proposed development.  The council & government should only   be looking to develop on Brownfield sites and should be seeking these alternatives, otherwise what is the point in having a Green Belt policy. I and the local residents are strongly opposed to this proposal and I hope the council listens and recognises that this should not  be approved and that Green Belt land should remain protected.

Comment

Representation ID: 12998

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Storey

I&O_13517
- 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: 13006

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Storey

I&O_13525
  - 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: 13024

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nick George

I&O_13543
NOR01  - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered. Barnton has good access to Runcorn and Liverpool and to the M56 and would have minimal impacts on the surrounding landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 13039

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Hunt

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_13558
As a long-standing resident of Davenham, I wish to formally object to the inclusion of development sites NOR06 and NOR07 in the July 2025 Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18). While I support the need for new housing across Cheshire West and Chester, the scale and location of these particular proposals are deeply concerning and, in my view, completely unsuitable for our village. Local Infrastructure Is Overstretched Davenham’s infrastructure is already at or near capacity. Roads including the A556, Hartford Road, and London Road are regularly congested, and more housing will only worsen this situation — increasing traffic, pollution, and safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Public transport links are poor, with limited and irregular bus services. Most residents must drive to train stations in nearby towns, where parking is limited and expensive. Our schools are full, with no clear plans for expansion. GP surgeries and healthcare providers are overstretched, and emergency services — including ambulance and fire — are under significant pressure. Adding hundreds of new homes would further compromise already strained public services. Loss of Village Character and Community Identity Davenham is a historic village with a Conservation Area and a strong local identity. The scale of these developments would fundamentally change its character, turning a small rural community into a suburban extension. Open green spaces that support community wellbeing — including walking and cycling routes — would be lost. These aren’t just fields to us; they are part of daily life, vital for mental and physical health, and essential for maintaining a rural lifestyle in an increasingly urbanised area. Environmental, Flood Risk, and Wildlife Concerns – Including NOR07 (Davenham West) The proposed site  NOR07 (Davenham West – North of Eaton Lane)  is of particular concern. According to the draft Local Plan, this parcel is approximately  21 hectares  with capacity for around  443 dwellings  — a major development that would overwhelm this part of the village. However, a significant portion of NOR07 falls within the  draft order limits of the Hynet Hydrogen Pipeline , as confirmed through Cadent’s Stage 2 consultation. The pipeline route has recently shifted further east, which is likely to directly impact the site’s developable area due to required safety standoff distances. Given that the application for the pipeline is expected in Autumn 2025, and the consultation is at an advanced stage, it is highly unlikely the route will change. This major infrastructure constraint has not been adequately considered in the site’s inclusion in the Local Plan. Beyond the pipeline, this site also includes  flood risk areas and ecological constraints  due to its proximity to the  River Weaver  and associated  local wildlife sites . There is a well-established  tree belt  on both sides of the river that provides essential habitat and further reduces the developable area. In addition, both NOR06 and NOR07 are  prime agricultural land , currently farmed and used for crops such as maize and Cheshire new potatoes. Eaton Lane farmland is recognised as among the best in the UK for growing conditions. These fields support a rich ecosystem —  bats (with suspected roosts), badgers (including protected setts), owls, foxes, butterflies, bees, and buzzards  — and are integral to the  local biodiversity network . Cheshire Wildlife Trust is actively reviewing the area for designation as a formal wildlife corridor, and the  Vale Royal Locks  and nearby fields are part of this. The impact on wildlife, flooding, and greenfield loss directly contradicts the sustainability goals of the Local Plan. More Suitable Sites Are Available Elsewhere The Local Plan should focus on sites with existing infrastructure and better transport connectivity. These include areas around  Barnton, Gadbrook Park, Winsford, Weaverham , and  Winnington Village , where roads, services, and public transport are already better developed. In particular, site  NOR08  (opposite School Lane, Hartford, along the A556) is a far more logical location for new development. It benefits from  direct access to Hartford train station , local amenities, and stronger road links — without compromising greenfield land or small rural communities. There is also untapped potential in  Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a golden opportunity for  regeneration-led, sustainable development . Contradictions with CWAC’s Own Planning Policies The current proposals conflict with several of CWAC’s stated Local Plan priorities: Protecting village character  — yet this would double the size of Davenham. Promoting health and wellbeing  — while removing green spaces vital for this. Preserving prime farmland  — which both NOR06 and NOR07 are. Ensuring infrastructure is in place first  — but Davenham’s roads, schools, and services are already overstretched. A More Balanced Way Forward As a resident, I’m not opposed to new homes — but they must be carefully planned and proportionate. The Parish Council has acknowledged interest in smaller-scale developments that better match the village’s size and infrastructure, such as: A pre-application from  Stonhams  for a modest development and community centre near Butchers Stile. A proposal from  Tatton Estates  to develop the Hamlet of Bostock. Together, these could add around  200 homes  to the parish in a more sensitive and sustainable manner, without overwhelming the village or destroying its character. For all these reasons, I strongly urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to  remove or significantly reduce  the proposed allocations for NOR06 and NOR07 in the final version of the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 13056

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Burbidge

I&O_13575
NOR07 .This site is prime agricultural land that  is farmed intensively .It is a valuable corridor for wildlife .This should be categorised as green belt . I appreciate that new housing is required, and more is currently being developed in Davenham befoee this local plan becomes active .The regeneration of Northwich Town centre brings a good opportunity for new homes .Any land bought for HS2 should also be considered 

Comment

Representation ID: 13059

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Burbidge

I&O_13578
NOR07 .This site is prime agricultural land that  is farmed intensively .It is a valuable corridor for wildlife .This should be categorised as green belt . I appreciate that new housing is required, and more is currently being developed in Davenham befoee this local plan becomes active .The regeneration of Northwich Town centre brings a good opportunity for new homes .Any land bought for HS2 should also be considered 

Comment

Representation ID: 13061

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jill Williamson

I&O_13580
Proposed planning developments around Davenham Objections no consideration given to existing residents who chose/have lived in this village who work hard to protect our identity as a rural village. no apparent reference to our falling national birthrate. No indication of who would actually want/ live in these developments given that recent village housing built consists of predominantly houses between £400k and £750k. No acknowledgement of the global food crisis. It is well documented that the UK does not produce enough food now so why suggest building developments on prime farm land? Given that global warming is visibly impacting on us all, the importation of foods which is both environmentally and economically costly and damaging seems another reason to opt for home produced. impact on nature. We enjoy a diverse range of British wildlife around Davenham. This should be preserved and not confined to manicured grass and hedges as on our recent housing developments which are trimmed several times a year and discourage birds from nesting, also destroying the layering effect of a natural hedgerow which sustains a whole food chain. (see Chris Packham explanation) • lack of infrastructure in the village. We already endure poor roads, traffic jams, lack of services such as doctors, dentists etc in the area. The school is full. Potentially 2 cars per household in just the Eaton Lane development would have significant and damaging consequences for every resident in the village. Clearly no village will want significant extra development. However there are many areas such as Tarvin and surrounding villages which do not appear to be subjected to large housing developments and are close to good roads. Also around Little Leigh towards the M56 link. I urge CWAC to consider the bigger (global and national) picture.

Comment

Representation ID: 13074

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Iain Swithenbank

I&O_13593
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: 13077

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Hitchens

I&O_13596
I 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. I am are also aware that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village

Comment

Representation ID: 13094

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Rooney

I&O_13613
NOR01 – Northeast of Barnton  While currently designated as Green Belt, its proximity to the A559 and existing village facilities, combined with limited landscape impact, makes it a site that could reasonably accommodate a balanced mix of housing in line with Local Plan objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 13148

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Pozniak

I&O_13667
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: 13166

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Aitken

I&O_13685
Whilst I do understand that we need more new housing I do think that we need to consider the impact on traffic and local amenities to existing local villages,  particularly in the Village of Davenham.   More consideration should be given to Town Centres and brownfield sites developed as a priority.  Northwich town centre needs moving forward and more affordable housing could be built with provision for restaurants and eateries to encourage footfall to the centre. Success stories like Altrincham market place should be developed to make Northwich the new go to place to eat out. Northwich currently lacks a vibe and Needs investment.   I think focus should also be on areas with good transport links to Manchester Liverpool and Chester with more development  in Lostock Gralam and Cuddington close to train links. The development of Gadbrook Park could perhaps revert to housing and a new school and Railway Station which is needed in the Rudheath area.   I strongly object to any further development in the  Village of Davenham . The road network through the village cannot sustain any more traffic. Proposals that have any effect on traffic in and out of this village are just not Practical and the  village school is already over subscribed and can’t take further children.Unless there is a plan to improve roads and parking, Davenham is a no go area and Nor06 Nor07 proposals should be removed. Davenham is a strong community and part of a conservation area. The proposed areas are currently working farmland and wildlife would also be dramatically impacted. The road network throughout the village is currently under pressure and further traffic would be a danger to motorists and pedestrians.   It would perhaps be an option to build another Kingsmead type development with access off the A556 and include a new school and local shops medical facilities and sports area.   Alternatively continue development of Winnington Village with more housing School and local amenities.   I hope my comments will be useful in coming to a final decision, regarding future development .

Comment

Representation ID: 13173

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Park

I&O_13692
I understand as part of your local plan you have designated some areas within or very close to Davenham Village.  These areas are NOR6, NOR7 and NOR8.  I’d like to add my objection to the countless others you have probably received about these areas. At the moment I am a resident towards the top of Hartford Road very close to the traffic lights that take you onto the A556, we moved there in 2011 as we thought it would be the perfect place to bring up a young family.  In the 14 years we’ve spent here we can already see the negative impact of already built additional housing in the area.  The primary school appears to have struggled with the additional demand if this was to increase again I think either serious funding would be needed to add more classrooms or alternatively a new site found to allow for expansion.  The general amenities are also under immense strain, it’s very difficult to get a doctors appointment and the dentist isnt taking on additional patients. The overall road infrastructure is also not fit for any expansion, the traffic increase over the years on Hartford Road is clearly visible and the addition of the traffic lights from Hill Top Grange onto Hartford Road although welcome as there is now a pedestrian crossing it has added additional traffic to the local area. As a resident it can easily take more the 5 minutes to exit my drive at rush hour. Finally all the areas identified are currently farm land/ green spaces, these are an important part of the community for adding a rich variety of wildlife and fertile farm land.  Surely brown field sites should be prioritised in and around Northwich or other areas which can be converted to housing.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13198

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Morgan

I&O_13717
- 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: 13202

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nicola Schroeder

SS 30
I&O_13721
Answer to question 30, relating to NOR01  We’re writing to oppose the building of new dwellings on green belt land in Anderton. Recently found to be grey belt despite the confusion of how this has been re designated. The policy to change green to grey aims to direct growth to areas that can accommodate it sustainably, which Anderton can’t. Northwich continues to have areas of unused, old development brownfield land, that could be considered first. We are residents in Hough Lane and we  already feel the effects of the building development in Winnington. The utilities are stretched and I’m sure you’ll remember the issues faced on soot hill with the land slide, which took almost two years and MP Esther McVey’s intervention to repair. This was caused by the installation of the amenities for Winnington. The roads around this area are still in need of essential repairs, which only last week were postponed for the third time.  A new bridge at Winnington is required and the two rejected requests for level up funding for the 45 million cost, is proof the council have also identified this. To then consider further developments without this project in place is unfathamble. The queues for winnington bridge traffic lights at school pick up and drop off are already too long, whether crossing or not resulting in children being late for school or Barnton being used as an alternative route, increasing cars travelling past Barnton school putting safety at risk. The local area lacks the infrastructure, Barnton school is over subscribed, and we are one of many who have to drive to a nearby village for a school, so more cars will be required on the un repaired roads. It is estimated a school is required for every 1000 homes built, yet Winnington despite promises still does not have a new school. The doctors at Barnton are at capacity every day, and openly advise how over stretched they are. The small car park is not equipped. This is also the case for the surrounding villages. During the time when there is a clear focus on the fragility on peoples mental health, there is also the concern on removing what is a much loved and needed path route to Marbury Park. Also making the country roads around Barnton and Anderton unsafe for cyclists and joggers. In over subscribing the area, it will impact what we can offer young people as well as impacting the local wildlife. We have foxes, badgers, hedgehogs and many others visitors to our garden.  I fully understand the labour governments reasoning and aim to increase and build 1.5 million homes before 2030, but the infrastructure has to be available in the areas considered. The monetary value and availability of land, should not out weigh the negative impact and disruption to the existing area and residents. To see the number of houses for sale already in Winnington due to problems faced with traffic, schools and amenities is evident the area is not ready for more houses. Northwich also has not delivered what was promised with the investment had of 80 million and now a further proposed 1.8 million. People continue to travel to Chester, Manchester and Liverpool for shopping experiences as most units are left empty. I hope the council consider all points very carefully before making a further decision.

Comment

Representation ID: 13227

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carden Group

I&O_13746
National policy has recently acknowledged that not all Green Belt land performs the same function. The newly defined “Grey Belt” recognises land that is already compromised by development, of poor environmental quality, or with limited openness. Our site clearly falls into this category. It is entirely enclosed and contained by existing housing on the edge of Northwich, with Chester Road to the north, Whitegate Lane to the west, and the A556 to the south. In this context, the land makes no contribution to the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 143 of the NPPF. It does not prevent unrestricted sprawl (purpose a), it does not sit within the gap between towns (purpose b), and it would not affect the setting or special character of a historic town (purpose d). Instead, the site represents a narrow strip of land hemmed in by established development and infrastructure, the release of which would have no material impact on the overall function of the Green Belt. Crucially, the original concept of the Green Belt, set out in Circular 42/55 and PPG2, stressed that Green Belts should be “at least several miles wide” to keep major settlements apart. Removing the site, along with all of the narrow land south of Chester Road shown in Figure 1, would not compromise this principle. The strategic Green Belt gap around Northwich would remain intact and comfortably above this threshold. Moreover, all of the growth areas identified around Northwich in the Local Plan are estimated to deliver in excess of 400 homes. By contrast, sites such as ours, capable of delivering approximately 100 homes, can be brought forward more quickly. Smaller sites of this scale are typically less complex in terms of land assembly, infrastructure provision, and planning negotiations, making them capable of accelerating housing delivery and contributing to meeting the Council’s short-term housing requirements. Accordingly, the land south of Chester Road, including our site outlined in red in Figure 1, should be deleted from the Green Belt. This area is a clear example of “Grey Belt” where carefully planned growth can be accommodated without undermining either the original purpose or the wider integrity of the Green Belt. It should therefore have been considered as a potential growth location for Northwich within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 13288

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Phil Storey

NOR01
I&O_13807
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: 13293

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bethany Rooney

I&O_13812
NOR01 – Northeast of Barnton: While currently designated as Green Belt, its proximity to the A559 and existing village facilities, combined with limited landscape impact, makes it a site that could reasonably accommodate a balanced mix of housing in line with Local Plan objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 13295

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bethany Rooney

I&O_13814
I would like to stress that the proposed site is home to a wide range of wildlife, including owls, hares, voles etc. Development would result in the destruction of valuable habitat that has existed for generations, undermining biodiversity at a time when environmental protection is more crucial than ever. Once lost, these natural ecosystems cannot be replaced. The land earmarked for development is not just open space, but potentially highly valuable agricultural land. At a time of increasing concern for food security, destroying productive farmland is short-sighted and unsustainable. Protecting land that can contribute to local and national food production should be a priority This village has developed over centuries with a strong sense of community, heritage, and rural identity. My own family has lived here for generations, and I feel deeply that the charm, atmosphere, and close-knit fabric of the village would be irrevocably damaged by large-scale development. The scale and nature of this proposed site is wholly out of keeping with the village’s character and risks eroding what makes it unique. Beyond the environmental and cultural harm, the village infrastructure is not equipped to handle significant additional housing. Roads, schools, medical services, and utilities are already under pressure. Development of this scale would place further unsustainable demands on limited resources.

Comment

Representation ID: 13300

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brenda Ruston

NOR01
I&O_13819
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.