Comment

Representation ID: 13310

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Beckwith

I&O_13829
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: 13353

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Adam Pozniak

I&O_13872
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: 13356

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Marcus Eves

I&O_13875
The Centre of Northwich offers considerable opportunity for regeneration: brownfield land and unused commercial area redevelopment opportunities along with unused riverside land opposite Barons Key which would offer a mix of housing in line with the local plan. There is also the possibility of Winnington village expansion due to the land offered by TATA.

Comment

Representation ID: 13360

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jason Hayes

I&O_13879
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: 13394

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Trust

I&O_13913
The Weaverham Trust does not support potential growth areas NOR10, NOR11 and NOR12 as these are all in the Green Belt. Housing in Weaverham is characterised by grass verges, hedgerows and trees. Large scale housing development will result in loss of village character, loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The sites identified include areas close to flood risk zones (NOR11) or on land that serves an important function in mitigating local flood risk (NOR12). The scale of potential development will impact negatively on residents ability to enjoy a safe and healthy lifestyle with a good quality of life. Option C Focuses on sustainable transport corridors. NOR10, NOR11, NOR12 do have have access to three local railway stations however taking the shops on Northwich Road as the centre of the village: Acton Bridge railway station is 2 miles away, only has15 car park spaces, no bicycle storage, no CCTV and does not have step free access to any platform. Cuddington railway station is 2 miles away, has 18 car park spaces, a bicycle stand for 2 bicycles, level access to the Manchester platform only, with a steep path and steps to the Chester platform. Greenbank railway station is 2.5 miles away, has15 car park spaces, no bicycle storage and limited disabled access. Weaverham is currently served by two buses. The Number 48 route connects Weaverham to Acton Bridge, Northwich and Frodsham with 5 buses a day. No evening service and no service at weekends. The first service to Acton Bridge railway station is at 09.17. The number 49 route travels between Weaverham and Northwich and on to Rudheath every 30 minutes during the day. There is no evening service or service on Sunday. The first bus to Greenbank for access to railway station is 06.57

Comment

Representation ID: 13404

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Brown

I&O_13923
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: 13463

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Harnett

I&O_13982
We believe that further regeneration of Northwich town centre offers a prime opportunity to help CWAC achieve its Local Plan targets for sustainable mixed-use housing development. Brownfield land, underutilised commercial space, and vacant riverside plots opposite Barons Quay should all be considered seriously. We are also aware that TATA has released additional land in Winnington. This could allow for the continued expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 13467

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Melanie Bradley

I&O_13986
I am writing to comment on the proposal for 5000 new homes around Northwich.  In response to question SS11 I strongly favour Option A (retain the greenbelt).  My response is mainly with reference to the proposals affecting Barnton and Weaverham. The land to the North of Barnton - identified as NOR01 - 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. Besides the crucial role of farmland - to grow food! It also plays a vital role in reducing the risks of flooding by soaking up rainfall and slowing water flows. In addition, 1700 new homes would put intolerable strain on the existing single lanes through and around Barnton village and on the already over-stretched routes into Northwich - Soot Hill and Barnton Bridge.  The bridge in particular surely should be a priority as this has caused congestion for many years.  The proposed NOR 10, NOR 11, NOR 12 at Weaverham each have their own natural characteristics: farmland, woodland regeneration and hedgerows, small woodlands and open space accessible through the PROW network. Once again, letting developers build housing without any provision for local infrastructure such as shops, doctors and public open space is lunacy. One or more of these plots being allocated for housing will substantially increase the size of the village putting extreme pressure on local facilities and the roads.  I recognise the need for new homes - I have 3 young adult children still living at home; they are unlikely to be able to afford to buy their own homes. Perhaps a drive to tackle the housebuilders who already have planning permission granted and have not yet built would be an idea? What about empty homes? There are many across Cheshire West.  Development must be in suitable, sustainable locations where infrastructure, services and transport are also provided by developers, and where it does not destroy irreplaceable habitats or undermine climate goals. As a final comment, please explain why you have made the consultation document so hard to read, understand and navigate! 

Comment

Representation ID: 13494

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Whitby

NOR06, NOR07, NOR08, NOR09
I&O_14013
My main objection to the proposed developments are: * areas NOR6 to NOR9 are currently grade 1 – 3 agricultural land * the areas mentioned above have greater potential to continue food production as well as being significant areas of flora and fauna and biodiversification for many years. * the government’s carbon footprint policy will continue to enhance this area in the future; this is currently being adopted by the Welsh Agricultural policies. If building is allowed on these areas these are my concerns: Water, sewerage and effluent run off potential into the river Weaver and Dane tributaries The additional strain on Davenham village school, services and increased traffic will be to the significant detriment of the village The wellbeing and happiness of the village as a whole will be distributed for many years In summary, I find it impossible to understand the need to sacrifice prime agricultural land for housing developments.   There are alternative areas worthy of further investigation for residential development such as the Cheshire County Council work yard off the A556 which has the potential to build 30-40 houses and would seem to be consistent with the government’s stated policy of building first on brown sites because this site has access to the road and public highway network and wider infrastructure.  Another area ripe for the addition of  residential development is the Gadbrook Park area which has excellent road access and building houses on unused land there would strengthen the current proposals to open railway links.

Comment

Representation ID: 13510

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Hitchens

I&O_14029
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: 13513

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Goodwin

I&O_14032
The area around Acton Bridge has been selected for its rail transport network. This is a limited network, which does not have the infrastructure to support a significant increase in usage. The village is already congested for parking and the traffic on the roads is dangerous (which the council are aware of).

Comment

Representation ID: 13530

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Bleasby

NOR01
I&O_14049
NOR01 Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the Northeast 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: 13539

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Daisy Miller

NOR01
I&O_14058
roads wouldn’t withhold the amount of traffic and trucks passing through as these are narrow country lanes. we also currently do not have enough spaces in the local Nursery settings, DOCTORS, Dentists, schools! local wildlife would be disturbed, we have local Bats and owls that fly around the fields and gardens so they live local! country lanes are not wide enough for two way traffic so would cause damage to hedgerows where wildlife live • local farmers use this land to grow lots of crops • Traffic over winnington bridge wouldn’t withstand the extra traffic as this is already a massive problem  

Comment

Representation ID: 13556

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Goudousaki

NOR01, NOR06, NOR07, NOR08
I&O_14075
NOR01 – While currently designated as green belt, the area to the northeast of Barnton could be considered for sensitive development. Its location near the A559 and close to village facilities makes it a convenient spot for local families. Development here could be done with minimal impact on the surrounding landscape and offers the chance to provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of the community, in line with the Local Plan. For these reasons, I urge the Council to remove large-scale housing allocations in Davenham from the final Local Plan. Future housing growth  must be directed to the right places  — where infrastructure already exists, where the environment can be protected, and where community character will not be sacrificed. The alternative sites I have outlined meet these criteria and are far more likely to gain public support. It is unfathomable that NOR06, NOR07, NOR08 have been identified as areas for housing - I surmise that they are deemed easy wins by private developers who may not have considered the lived reality of the people who call this beautiful village area home and how these plans would irreversibly change it in a profoundly negative way. We collectively have an obligation to ensure that developer pressure and lobbying does not erode what democracy values, and that which is protected in day-to-day policy and law. More work and due diligence must be done to identify suitable areas, and more focus placed on regenerating areas in central Northwich.  We must protect village community, policy, safety and ecology. If we remove/destroy the ecologically important green spaces and disturb the quiet, safe and simple nature of our cherished village, then what is left for the people who live here? We look to CWAC to uphold its key principles and commitment to its strong ethical values. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13572

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Bleasby

NOR01
I&O_14091
NOR01 Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the Northeast 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: 13590

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Molly Ruston

NOR01
I&O_14109
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: 13610

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Abby Mercer

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_14129
Yes, specifically in relation to NOR6, which relates to a large area to the south of Davenham broadly bound by Church Street, London Road and the A533. The draft growth area designation at NOR6 is bisected by a strong diagonal hedge line. To the south of the hedge the land is relatively open, agricultural in character and actively farmed. North of the hedgeline however the character of the land is completely different; it is more intimate in character and it contains the Grade 2 * listed Davenham Hall alongside its associated parkland with a large number of TPO protected estate trees. It borders with the Grade 2* listed building at St Wilfrids Church on Church Street. Looking at the parkland alone, its value is reflected in the fact that it is subject to an Article 4 direction, removing all agricultural permitted development rights to ensure long term preservation of character and contribution. More fundamentally, the special character of this northern half of NOR6 is reflected in its full inclusion within the Davenham Conservation Area. The adopted Davenham and Whatcroft Neighbourhood Plan (2017) identifies this parkland as one of the two defining elements of the Conservation Area, asserting that the land and its interspersed estate trees form part of the setting of Davenham Hall. It is clear that the Conservation Area and the listed building at Davenham Hall, along with its setting, are Designated Heritage Assets for the purposes of planning policy. The draft Local Plan states at paragraph 5.12 that the draft Growth allocations should exclude those areas of land that are subject to ‘showstopper’ designations which would restrict their potential future development and contribution. One such ‘showstopper’ is identified within paragraph 5.12 as land containing Designated Heritage Assets. This is a reasonable approach given that the Council have a statutory duty, under the 1990 Act, to maintain or enhance the character of any desiganted Conservation Area, alongside a legal duty to maintain the character and setting of any Listed Building and its curtilage. The Council would be failing on both fronts were it to include the parkland at NOR6 as part of a volume housing allocation. On the draft Plans own terms therefore, the northern half of Growth Area NOR6 should be excluded from any future consideration. It is accepted that the current Plan shows the Growth areas in draft form only. The next version of the Plan, which will presumably define allocations more accurately, should ensure that the boundary of NOR6 (if it is to be retained) should be drawn to exclude the northern half as defined by the Conservation Area boundary. The ongoing suitability or otherwise of the smaller NOR6 allocation could then be assessed as part of the wider Regulation 19 Plan process. Building on NOR6 and NOR7 would significantly threaten Davenham’s unique village character and place stress on the local infrastructure which is already close to breaking point, but building in the conservation area, with the considerable impact on the setting of the 3 grade 2/2* listed buildings would eradicate 200 years of heritage and cause irrevocable change to a village which dates back to the Domesday Book. In reality, the future expansion of Northwich, if needed, would be better directed to the less constrained sites such as NOR1, 2, and 8 to 12.

Comment

Representation ID: 13628

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Adamson

I&O_14147
Firstly, It should be defined by what is deemed to be growth areas? It is notable that growth areas seem to relate to housing growth and NOT business and employment growth. Northwich and its surrounding villages have become merely residential zones. The Northwich area was renowned for its highly skilled employment opportunities in years gone by. Now the highly skilled employment opportunities are in  Warrington, Chester, Manchester, Liverpool and beyond. This has now put strains on transport infrastructure as the growing local population leaves the Northwich area daily. This has resulted in major traffic issues on the A556 particularly during peak times which caused grid lock in various locations. For example into Davenham on London Road from the Davenham roundabout or from the Davenham Bypass into the Kingsmead junction at the A556 roundabout at Davenham/Kingsmead/Leftwich. 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: 13645

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Joanne Driffield

SS 30
I&O_14164
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: 13701

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Turner

NOR06 / NOR07 / NOR08
I&O_14221
I believe that rural areas such as Davenham should be preserved as villages and not built into large housing estates connected by by-passes.

Comment

Representation ID: 13743

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Pauline and Christopher Owens

I&O_14263
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: 13754

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ben Priestley

I&O_14274
Only that any growth areas around Northwich should be in areas other than in the green belt.  Northwich has already seen plenty of house building around winnington etc. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13776

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carl Wood

NOR01
I&O_14296
NOR01 – Barnton (NE expansion): This site has good transport access via the A559, close links to village services, and minimal impact on the wider landscape. It could deliver the housing mix needed without compromising rural character. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13810

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Paul and Linda Jones

I&O_14330
Having seen the proposed areas for consideration we would like to make the following observations and to disagree and object with the proposals. Better planning is needed to develop brown field and grey belt sites this especially includes land no longer used in and around Gadbroooke park Winsford Road One industrial estate and  both Northwich and Winsford town centres including Barons Quay.  CWAC needs to plan infrastructure first, and build houses secondly or at least concurrently.  New plans need to cater for infrastructure not just a number of houses, build roads, plan new schools, update and expand hospitals add other local services such as Gp surgeries, pharmacists, shops and other amenities, before doubling the size of small local villages, with working farms located in and around greenbelt land. CWACs Local plan states that they will continue to:- Some headings have been discussed by the local council I have used these to highlight issues. Protect the character of a village:   To double the size of Davenham is at odds with protect the character of a village,  there are no thoughts about what houses are required or how they benefit Davenham, all property developers are interested in is developing virgin land ideally flat fields and placing the highest number of properties on that land.  There will be little thought and next to no concern for what Davenham or the greater region of Cheshire needs or wants, they are solely engaged in turning land into profit. They do this by building as many detached 3-5 bedroom houses as they can, paying little attention to so called essential homes for 1st time buyers or bungalows for the older generations of Davenham.   With all the proposed houses where are the green spaces, schools, GP surgeries, shops and all the other infrastructure needed that is currently not in place? These proposals would allow development on green spaces and obliterate the very green belt land , everyone is constantly saying we should protect. Green spaces under the Government’s environmental policy are to be considered as a very last and final option, not a first option, easy does not make it right, and brown and grey field sites need to be considered firstly for development, just because property developers will not make huge profits and find it more complex to develop the land in the future does not make it right to allocate currently working farmland and greenbelt first. Davenham is a very historic and nature rich area, the village has significant areas of special interest SSIs and is also recorded in the Doomsday book 0f 1086. Promote wellbeing:  The shear number of houses will kill Davenham, it will harm the sense of community that is currently really good under Davenham parish council. It will destroy coalescing boundaries and make the village and local area buckle under the strain, due to the lack of infrastructure, rather than promoting wellbeing this will destroy it.  2000+ cars will not help air quality or the local environment.  Only consider Prime farmland in exceptional circumstances -  What we find amazing is that it would appear anyone can allocate land for this proposal, even land that they do not own it!  We were amazed that both NOR06 & NOR07 are in the proposal, These are both working farms after discussing the proposals with other residents and farmers it was very easy to sympathise with both farms that someone had allocated their family land to this proposal. These sites NOR06 & NOR07 are both considered to be prime farmland, they are both currently operating farms. You can understand the anger, stress and frustration they feel. If we lose our historic farmland and our ability to farm what happens to our local area and sense of identity. Ensure there is appropriate infrastructure!  Our local roads according to Cheshire Wests own figures are at capacity, our buses are infrequent and availability not conducive to regular use. Davenham has no train station, so most trips by train require a drive to the  local stations of Hartford (2.2. miles away) Greenbank(2.4. miles away) or Northwich (3 miles away)Trains require users to drive to all nearby stations - car parking is costly and limited Davenham Primary school is a CofE Primary School has a capacity of 315 pupils. As of March 2025, the school's actual number of pupils on roll was 309, just under its capacity., it can take another 6 pupils!  There are no provisions for other faith schools Leftwich the County High School, Leftwich has a  published school capacity of 1050 pupils, with 1048 enrolled . The school’s Published Admission Number (PAN) is currently over-subscribed. Closest special needs school is in Winsford which would agin require travel by car. Whilst  there is a CofE  and methodist church within Davenham, there are no other facilities that cater for other christian denominations or faiths, so again road travel would be essential. Drainage -  Davenahm, and Northwich would suffer with drainage issues, with all the natural soak aways and water absorbing elements removed i.e. the fields, where does the water go, the only assumption is that it will go into the sewer system.  Information provided by United utilities indicates that system has issues handling the current load.  The Davenham trunk sewer is  collecting wastewater from Davenham, South Leftwich, and Moulton. That trunk apparently feeds into Northwich Trunk via pumping stations, and is carried  to Northwich wastewater treatment works. Several reports would appear to indicate that Northwich's sewer system faces significant challenges with insufficient capacity, particularly during heavy rainfall, which can lead to flooding and overflows. The  Dock Road pumping station  is a particular concern. All these reports seem to highlight Insufficient Capacity within the current system, this would need careful management before additional houses are added. The existing infrastructure struggles to handle the volume of water during storms, leading to "river-locked" overflows where water cannot drain to the River Weaver due to high river levels. A contingency plan involves 12 pumps at various locations, including Dock Road, London Road, Weaver Way, and Baron's Quay, capable of pumping around 1,000 liters per second. The  Environmental Agency can provide additional  Pumps are also available from the Environment Agency to be deployed in the event of need. Extra houses means a greater strain on the system Measures to improve capacity and prevent flooding.  United Utilities and the Enviroment Agency have been working on the following,  increase pumping capacity by installing more pumps and upgrading existing facilities. Divert water from highway drains into ditches or ponds to reduce the volume reaching the sewer system Install sumps in Northwich centre to act as temporary holding areas for water when the sewer system is overloaded and cannot discharge to the river. Managing the River Weaver by lowering water levels through measures like investing in sluice gates is another strategy to improve drainage and prevent overflow. Current system is struggling and has issues Electricity  -  Davenham can sometimes seem to struggle with power and the village has experienced several power cuts, the power cuts indicate that this would need investigation and improving before increasing the number of houses Gas -  Capacity is unknown Cars - The number of cars would increase significantly if the proposal is for 1000+ houses, then it would be safe to assume an increase of 2000+ cars This would increase congestion on all local and major routes and it would cause a significant rise in environmental pollution levels and lower air quality . Environmental services - Extra bin collections would be needed, and recycling plants would need upscaling and extra drop off or collection services added or introduced.

Comment

Representation ID: 13812

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Paul and Linda Jones

I&O_14332
-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: 13843

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Swithenbank

I&O_14363
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: 13890

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kat Stahl

I&O_14410
I would love the council to be supporting more radical approaches to land and housing, including supporting local regenerative agriculture, market garden food producers,  and exploring land-based, low impact tiny house dwellings, or making HMO simpler for micro-communities and collectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 13893

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mungo Dalglish

I&O_14413
Question SS 30: I would love the council to be supporting more radical approaches to land and housing, including supporting regenerative agriculture (like https://wildfarmed.com ), and exploring land-based tiny house dwellings, or making HMO simpler for micro-communities and collectives. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13898

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: rebecca nancollas

I&O_14418
In response to the Local Plan and in particular  NOR07  (Land off Eaton Lane) which has caused a great deal of concern  please note my following comments: We live opposite the top of Eaton Lane on Hartford Road. Volume and nature of traffic use is already too high (and dangerous), especially after the introduction of traffic lights (a baffling decision, ill thought out) off the A556 basically encouraging drivers to use Hartford Road as a cut through. The road is not suitable for current levels of traffic, which is exacerbated further by the parking issues.  Adding circa 440 houses on Eaton Lane, meaning at least 880 cars will go beyond breaking point on both Hartford Road and also Eaton Lane. We witness many occasions where buses and tractors come to a stand still because they cannot get through. Please also note, that other than local volunteers, we never see police with speed guns and it seems to be a forgotten route (it's obviously easier to park a van on the bypass in a layby, which inherently is a far safer road). Eaton Lane as the name suggests is a Lane and it is hard to imagine how it would deal with the increased traffic, even more unimaginable is how this site would be accessed as it is currently a track. Hartford Rd and Eaton Lane could not withstand construction traffic which could be potentially for a long period of time. The land in question (NOR07) is beautiful open countryside / farm land, which is enjoyed by local residents and the like for exercise, dog walking, children playing etc. It is hard to imagine a less suitable site than this for a large sprawling housing estate and all that that brings with it (more surface water issues, noise, extensive prolonged building projects) The destruction of well established wildlife habitats (tick box mitigation measures would not replace what is there currently). We see badgers, foxes, owls, bats and much more wildlife on a daily basis. In addition to this, there is also substantial, established flora and fauna Increasing the size of a small village like Davenham on this scale would hugely affect its identity and character. Most residents have chosen to live here and in most cases pay a premium to live here purely because of this. This proposal is massively disproportionate Prime, productive farmland would be destroyed forever Primary school already over subscribed Doctors and dentists are not available in Davenham Parking is already causing the residents major issues I would strongly urge Cheshire West and Chester to reconsider this proposal, not least because of the above points I am Davenham born and bred and whilst it has changed over the years, it still retains a village feel and has a strong community spirit. I feel that this would be lost forever, if this wholly inappropriate proposal went ahead as it would effectively turn it into a town, without any of the town's infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 13902

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Swithenbank

I&O_14422
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.