Comment

Representation ID: 13905

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Smart

I&O_14425
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich?  NOR01 - Although currently identified as a green belt site, 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: 13983

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Yates

I&O_14503
I also support Option A for question SS30, as the current infrastructure in and around Barnton is already stretched and would be unlikely to cope with such a development. Notable infrastructure deficiencies include: Road network and traffic capacity: Barnton’s roadways—including Runcorn Road (A533) and village lanes—already experience congestion, particularly during peak times. The A533 is a narrow single-carriage route into Northwich and beyond, unsuitable for a massive increase in traffic flow. Public transport limitations: Our bus services to Northwich and surrounding areas are infrequent and limited. There is no railway station in Barnton, and existing public transport would be unlikely to absorb a large influx of new passengers effectively. Essential services constraints: Barnton currently supports only a small number of shops, a primary school, and a single health centre. There is just one pub and limited community amenities  . The village lacks secondary schools, dental practices, and sufficient GP capacity. These facilities simply couldn’t support thousands more residents without significant investment and expansion. Community cohesion and identity: Barnton has a distinct character and layout—split into the historic core, council-built estate, and newer Locke estate  . A large development would overwhelm the village’s structure, erode its identity, and stretch already thin community facilities (playgrounds, Memorial Hall, sports clubs, recreation grounds)  .

Comment

Representation ID: 14042

Received: 02/09/2025

Respondent: Gill Murray

NOR01
I&O_14579
I am writing to formally object to the proposed planning application for the construction of 1,700 new properties in the Barnton area. There are several reasons for my objection, which I set out below:  Green Belt Land
 The proposed site lies within the Green Belt, which must be protected from development to preserve the countryside and prevent urban sprawl. Once lost, this valuable landscape cannot be recovered.  Traffic and Access Concerns
 Barnton is already experiencing significant traffic problems, particularly following the construction of the Winnington Village development. Access in and out of Barnton is severely limited by a single bridge, which serves as the only route for both residents and emergency vehicles. As it is a single-track bridge, any closure (for repairs or other reasons) effectively cuts Barnton off from Northwich, requiring lengthy detours.  Sewerage and Infrastructure Issues
 The local sewerage system is already at capacity and struggling to cope. Adding 1,700 more homes would place unsustainable pressure on this system, causing further problems for residents.  Impact on Nature and Wildlife
The proposed development would have a destructive impact on Marbury Country Park and the surrounding natural habitats, harming wildlife and damaging an area much valued by the community. Road Network and Additional Developments
 The existing road infrastructure cannot sustain such a major increase in traffic. This issue is further compounded by the additional proposed solar park development on Winnington Avenue. I therefore urge you to reject this planning proposal and instead prioritise the protection of our Green Belt and the preservation of our countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 14056

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Birkett

NOR01, NOR02
I&O_14593
- 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 NOR 2 also seems to offer opportunities. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14123

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ryan Buckley

NOR01
I&O_14666
- 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: 14125

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonny McGowan

I&O_14668
#NAME?

Comment

Representation ID: 14145

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Vicky Wood

NOR01
I&O_14689
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: 14162

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Hammond

I&O_14706
Concerns over the proposed NOR06 development area Davenham, a village in Cheshire whose name means “hamlet on the River Dane,” has evolved far beyond its origins. The proposed addition of 862 houses through the NOR6 Area development threatens to significantly alter the village’s unique character. While character can be difficult to define, it becomes clear that, given the area’s limited local infrastructure, such a substantial development would inevitably strain schools, roads, and other essential services. Davenham's only primary school, Davenham CofE Primary School, has an official capacity of 315 pupils and currently has 309 pupils as of the 2024/2025 academic year, meaning it is operating very close to its full capacity. The Addition of 862 houses to the catchment area will create significant problems, oversubscription, and potentially negatively impact the education facilities.  The development proposes adding 862 houses to an area that currently lacks its own GP surgery and requires residents to travel to Northwich or Winsford to access sports facilities. However, bus services are limited, with buses from Davenham to Northwich running only hourly or every thirty minutes; as a result, most residents rely on cars. With the average UK household owning 1.2 cars, the proposed development of 862 houses could add 1,000 or more vehicles to already congested local roads. These are just a few of the practical objections to such an extensive building programme. Other concerns include the proper consideration of the water table's impact. In addition to our objection to the above unrealistic expansion, we would also raise the issue of the proposed development off London Road opposite Peckmill Scout Wood.  We have been made aware that, rather than using the egress point already in situ when the land was purchased, via London Road, the developer is approaching homeowners on the Mere Bank estate in an attempt to purchase properties with the intention of opening access to the new development via the Mere Bank estate.   This would directly impact hundreds of families and elderly homeowners on what is a quiet estate. The Mere Bank estate was built as a closed area, not a thoroughfare.  I would note the developer on the Peckmill plot would have been aware of the access limitation at the time of their purchase and therefore, should not now expect the Mere Bank estate to take additional footfall and traffic from the new development.   I would also question this development on the grounds that it is a flood zone for Peckmill Brook. [LAA 1685] We object to the proposed developments in the village and believe further consideration should be given to utilising the derelict brown field sites before changing the nature, amenity and quality of life of in Davenham.

Comment

Representation ID: 14175

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nicola Buckley

I&O_14719
- 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: 14179

Received: 15/09/2025

Respondent: Gemma Copeland

NOR10
I&O_14723
I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of Site NOR 10 (land south of Weaverham, bounded by Poplar Road, Gorstage Lane and Northwich Road) within the Local Plan process.  I am aware that the consultation deadline was 29th August 2025, but I ask that my representation is still recorded given the significance of the issues raised. Grounds for Objection Green Belt Protection The land lies within the North Cheshire Green Belt, where development is considered inappropriate by definition under both national and local policy. Development here would only be justified by exceptional circumstances, which do not exist. The purpose of the Green Belt is to safeguard the countryside, prevent urban sprawl, and protect the rural identity of villages like Weaverham.  Heritage and Historic Landscape The site forms part of the wider historic landscape of the Battle of Winnington Bridge (1659), an important Civil War conflict commemorated locally and with archaeological potential. In addition, the site adjoins Gorstage Hall (Grade II) and Corstage Farmhouse (Grade II), whose rural setting is essential to their significance. Large-scale housing would cause clear and irreversible harm.  Biodiversity and Nature Conservation The fields and hedgerows provide habitats for birds, bats and other protected species. Development would fragment these habitats and make it extremely difficult to deliver the required biodiversity net gain.  Agricultural Land This is productive farmland and is likely to be classified as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, which is protected under planning policy. Its loss would undermine local food security at a time when farmland should be safeguarded.  Flood Risk Weaverham and Acton Bridge already experience flooding issues. Building on this land will increase surface water run-off into the River Weaver catchment, heightening flood risks downstream.  Rural Character and Settlement Pattern Weaverham is identified in policy as a rural settlement within the Green Belt, and the Council’s own Conservation Area appraisal highlights the importance of protecting its countryside setting. Developing this site would urbanise Weaverham’s edge, cut its link with the River Weaver valley, and fundamentally erode the rural character of the village.  Infrastructure Capacity Local roads, schools and GP services are already under significant pressure. Adding hundreds of new homes here would cause unsustainable strain on essential community infrastructure.  --- Conclusion For these reasons, I strongly object to any allocation or development of Site NOR 10 in the Local Plan. The proposal conflicts with STRAT 5, DM 44, and DM 45 of the Cheshire West & Chester Local Plan, as well as the Green Belt protections set out in the NPPF. I therefore respectfully request that this site is neither allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan nor granted permission in any future planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 14326

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John and Belinda Price

I&O_14870
I would like to very strongly object to the local plan 2030 2035 My objections are purely based on the fact that Davenham CANNOT  Cope with move traffic the local infrastructure schools doctors dentists are already stretched beyond believe....these site are grade 1 and 2 agriculture fields ...surely there are alternative brown field sites that would benefit from development ( even if it costs developers more )....please take everyones objections seriously... Once these green field sites are lost they are gone forever ...

Comment

Representation ID: 14337

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: June Cochlin

I&O_14881
On seeing the consultation map I would object strongly to the excessive number of houses suggested in the plan, turning a village into a sprawling conurbation. No more than 500 houses, at most, should be considered, especially as there are few amenities (no doctors, no bus service, no secondary school) in the village to cater for the influx. Also to consider is the loss of agricultural land and the environmental impact on the present population. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14400

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Pozniak

I&O_14944
We urge the Council to take full advantage of brownfield and underused commercial land within Northwich itself—particularly areas along the riverside opposite Barons Quay. These sites offer prime opportunities for mixed-use and sustainable development in line with regeneration efforts. We also understand that TATA has released additional land in Winnington, which could support further expansion of Winnington Village. This should be explored before pursuing development on more sensitive greenfield sites. ________________________________________

Comment

Representation ID: 14415

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Beckwith

I&O_14959
-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: 14441

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Davenham & Bostock Parish Council

I&O_14985
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: 14500

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Eves

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_15045
Davenham is our home. Its heritage, countryside, and strong community make it special – and the proposed developments at NOR06 and NOR07 would irreversibly destroy that. These sites are far too large for the village, with hundreds of houses completely out of scale. Our roads are already congested, public transport minimal, and local services like doctors, dentists, and schools are at capacity. The land is prone to flooding, home to ancient trees, wildlife, and prime farmland – once lost, it cannot be restored. NOR06 sits next to a Conservation Area and a well-used footpath, while NOR07 is near a future hydrogen pipeline and working farms. There are far better options for sustainable growth around Northwich: • NOR01 (NE Barnton): Good infrastructure, minimal landscape impact, and mix of housing possible. • NOR04/05 (Gadbrook Park): Vacated offices could become homes with new sustainable transport links. • NOR08 (S of A556 opposite Hartford): Excellent access to roads and railway station. • NOR10 (Weaverham): Existing infrastructure, capacity for housing, and potential for a new access road to ease traffic. We are not against change, but it must be the right scale, in the right place, with proper support. These proposals would rip the heart out of Davenham. This is about protecting our homes, our families, and our children’s future. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever. Please listen to the people who live here – we love our village, and we must protect it.

Comment

Representation ID: 14504

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Val Hitchens

I&O_15049
  with regard to the revised planning policy for building on  land around Davenham, i would like to express my concerns about lack of thought and consideration which has be shown on some of the areas mentioned. (Nor06/07/) Davenham is a small historical village mentioned in the doomsday book, but it does not have the capacity to accommodate the amount of houses shown on the plans. The  lack of infrastructure of roads and services through the village is already busy and chaotic(trying  to cross the roads at peak periods, is already dangerous as there no  pedestrian crossing and  heavy vehicles  often speed through the village)   Proposals could double the size of the village and with most houses using at least 2 cars, this is a serious health risk with transport around  Davenham reliant on using a car and There is already a lack of facilities for doctor surgery, dentist, schools etc. Building houses in this area, some of which is prime farm land and some which is liable to flooding, will seriously impact  on the environment with loss and destruction to the biodiversity (trees/hedgerows) and eco system(flora/fauna and wildlife) Also the proposed hydrogen pipeline is in the Nor07 area. People metal well-being will also be affected with loss of access to green spaces, walks etc. Looking at the plan, a more sensible area to build, would be around Nor01 (Barnton) which is near to main transport links but more importantly the area already has a doctors surgery/dentist  and facilities such as a library and village hall etc an  Nor10/(weaverham) which also has good transport and other facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 14514

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Arden Enterprises Group LLP

Agent: Bidwells

NOR 08
I&O_15060
The site is identified as having capacity for c. 901 dwellings across a gross area of c. 43 hectares. Potential development of the land west of the railway line would rely on forming a new access of the A556. Both the west and east parcels have extensive coverage by mature trees which as well as being along established tree belts are also dispersed across the site. The east parcel contains a Local Wildlife Site and is mostly within a mineral safeguarding zone. Furthermore, the noise impact of the A556 is likely to sterilise the development potential allowing for likely noise buffers. The A-road also limits the ability to deliver sustainable transport connections back to the existing town. Having regard to the identified constraints, we consider the developable parts of the site are no greater than c. 29 hectares before other potential constraints are accounted for. However, even that smaller area for the above reasons - in particular the physical separation from the existing town caused by the A-road- is in our professional opinion not a sustainable option.

Comment

Representation ID: 14515

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Arden Enterprises Group LLP

Agent: Bidwells

NOR 06
I&O_15061
Almost all of the proposed growth area is within the designated Davenham Conservation Area boundary and also Neighbourhood Plan policy protections. The main facet of the conservation area is focused on land surrounding the Grade II listed building of Davenham Hall. As noted in the Davenham and Moulton Neighbourhood Plan, the meadow and mature trees that surround the listed building form an important part of the significance of the conservation area and the land is currently protected via an established Article 4 direction which removes agricultural permitted development rights. Much of the land is also identified as medium to high distinctiveness ecology habitat which the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect. We are therefore of the opinion that this is not a sustainable location for strategic housing development or policy compliant and the growth area should be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 14516

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Arden Enterprises Group LLP

Agent: Bidwells

NOR 07
I&O_15062
The site is identified as having a gross area of c. 21 hectares with capacity to provide c. 443 dwellings. The site has flood and ecology constraints associated with River Weaver and its habitats (with areas around the river designated local wildlife sites), and there is an extensive tree belt along either side of the river in this location which limits land available for development. We also note that a significant portion of the site falls within the draft order limits of the Hynet Hydrogen Pipeline. Following Cadent’s Stage 2 consultation the route of the pipe has shifted east which is likely to impact the site’s developable area particularly accounting for likely development stand-off distances. The consultation is also now well advanced with an application expected to come forward in Autumn 2025, such that the route is unlikely to be amended at this late stage in the process. Once these constraints are accounted for, the developable area is likely to be reduced to c. 15 hectares, which applying the density assumptions in the draft plan reduces the housing estimate by almost 150 units, before other potential constraints are accounted for.

Comment

Representation ID: 14538

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqueline Moore

NOR11
I&O_15084
This development is huge. Comberbach suffered flooding four years ago in areas it has never flooded. The fields between here and barnton take much of the water. The water will have no were to go. There has already been huge development at winnington. The doctors surgery in Barton is already struggling. I strongly oppose NOR11 being sited for development For several reasons: There has been an increase in flooding in the villages around northwich. Concreting over areas of grassland will make this worse as the water will have no where to go.   we need to invest in farmland for food, to become less reliant on imports  environmental concerns - destroying habit for insects, bees, wildlife.  the mental wellbeing of people - people moved to the countryside because they wanted to live in the countryside. Not for that to be turned into a sprawling town.  once you’ve build on our countryside, it will be lost forever. We can never have it back.  My preference is for the empty buildings in town and brown belt areas to be developed on. Please protect and preserve our precious countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 14581

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Powell

I&O_15127
  I notice the proposed developments map suggests enlarging dormitory areas and existing employment sites. Gadbrook Park already has traffic issues. I propose a more mixed approach, so that employment within a village is more possible. Buses can be filled going both directions, whether morning or evening rush. As you state in your Sustainability Appraisal: Provide for mixed-use developments which seek to provide access to homes, employment, retail, leisure, sport and other facilities, promoting healthy and inclusive communities whilst reducing the need to travel. [Add greenspace] Locate new housing, with good accessibility to existing or proposed local shops, community facilities and primary schools and with good connections to public transport. The A556 should not be developed to the south, apart from the existing and established villages of Davenham and Moulton. Anything else – Sandiway South, Gadbrook extension – involve crossing a busy road. Sandiway South would have all residents dependent on facilities on the other side of the A556. As a child, I enjoyed wandering and playing in Kennel Woods, west of Kennel Lane: this should be preserved, the only wildspace in Sandiway/Cuddington.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14594

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Davies

SS 30
I&O_15142
Objection to Proposed Development of 1,700 Houses on Green Belt Land I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed development of approximately 1,700 houses on green belt land to the rear of my home in Barton, Northwich (NOR01).  While I recognise the need for additional housing in the borough, I believe this proposal would have a profoundly negative impact on both the local environment and the wider community, and I urge the Council to reconsider the location of this scheme. The proposed site sits within a highly valued stretch of countryside which currently serves as an important green belt buffer. This land provides vital leisure and recreational space, with large numbers of walkers and cyclists using it daily. Its loss would not only diminish the character of the area but would also deprive residents and visitors of the health and wellbeing benefits that access to such open space provides. Once developed, this natural landscape cannot be replaced. In addition to the environmental impact, the proposed development raises serious questions about infrastructure capacity. The area is already under strain, with the single-lane bridge at Winnington acting as a daily bottleneck for traffic. Congestion is a persistent issue, and the addition of thousands of new residents would significantly worsen the situation with 3400 new cars. Local services—including roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities—are already stretched, and there is little evidence that adequate provision has been made to meet the demands such a large development would create. While housing is necessary, it must be located and planned in a way that is sustainable and proportionate. As everyone knows, building on protected green belt land should only ever be a last resort, and I do not believe that the justification for this proposal meets that threshold. There are alternative sites and brownfield opportunities within the borough that could be prioritised, ensuring that growth is achieved without sacrificing vital green space or overburdening inadequate infrastructure. This is detrimental for the town either. If CWAC are not careful, Northwich will be nothing but housing estates and traffic congestion and frustrated residents who can't reach a doctor or get thier child into a good school.  We are extremely fortunate to be able to live in such a mixed area where houses are spread out, and  even simple houses are well spaced l. Residents can walk a short distance and feel content.  This us good for their mental and physical health.  I therefore respectfully request that Cheshire West and Chester Council reconsiders this proposal, giving due weight to the environmental, recreational, and infrastructural concerns raised by residents. Protecting our green belt is essential not only for the present community but for future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 14621

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Ian Fogg

NOR06
I&O_15171
NOR06 to the east of Davenham could be developed in the longer term in a phased manner taking access from the A533 village by-pass. In order to protect the character of the village and conservation area a significant buffer to the new development would need to be left.

Comment

Representation ID: 14659

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Pauline Freeman

I&O_15209
1700 homes north of Barnton The prepossed area is green belt, there are no proper road links only small country lanes. The Dr's, school and dentist is already full. The small swing bridge at the bottom of Soot Hill is already struggling with traffic and if the solar farm does go ahead the amount of traffic will be horrendous if this goes ahead the effect on the wildlife and countryside will be a disaster!!! 

Comment

Representation ID: 14675

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs PJ Williams

I&O_15225
We are residents living in Anderton and have been made aware that the council has changed “Green” belt land to “Grey” belt area in order to build 500 houses on land off New Road Anderton/Marbury, named NOR01.   We would like to raise strong objection against this plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 14699

Received: 02/09/2025

Respondent: Darnhall Parish Council

I&O_15249
The Parish Council has also noted CWAC’s comment that under all of the options, it may be necessary to identify new areas or broad locations for development if not enough land can be identified within settlements, and that these areas may be located in the Green Belt and/or countryside. In addition, Darnhall Parish Council has noted that land has been excluded where there are constraints that would act as potential ‘showstoppers’ to restrict future development for example designated habitats sites, areas of flood risk and significant hazard zones. Finally, Darnhall Parish Council notes that that approximately 100 areas have been identified for potential growth and/or future allocation in the new Local Plan. Finally, Darnhall Parish Council makes the following points: - Protection of Land – Members considered the following potential areas of protection within the parish and agreed the following: Areas of interconnected woods along the Ashbrook valley, forming wildlife corridors connecting with the River Weaver, the Flashes and Wimboldsley Woods. Buffer zones (between areas of development) across the parish containing wildlife and to protect the environment and promote biodiversity Hall Lane – to protect vistas on both sides of the road Raven site – to propose as a brownfield site • The Parish Council also makes the general point that infrastructure should be improved in the area to match additional housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 14724

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Craig Goodwin

I&O_15274
With regard to the proposed new 2025 Local Plan for Northwich, I wish to object on the following grounds. Acton Bridge Station itself is not a busy station and services less than 50 commuters each day. However, the station is busier now than ever before but only because it offers free parking where other nearby railway stations do not. Therefor, there is no incentive or requirement to develop Acton Bridge Station, which in its current form is antiquated and small.

Comment

Representation ID: 14775

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: United Utilities Property Services

Agent: Lichfields

I&O_15326
Green Belt Purpose (a) - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. The Site lies immediately adjacent to the existing urban area of Hartford. It is located in a visual gap between the defined settlement of Northwich to the east and south and an existing residential estate to the west. The Site comprises land that is already encompassed by built development on three sides and is visually and physically contained. The golf course to the north further assists within the containment of the Site and neighbouring development to the west. Taking the Site together with the adjoining Green Belt land to the northeast, this sits within a nook of Green Belt land which could be explored for release together should a larger site in this location be required to meet identified needs. Should the Site and any other adjoining land come forward for residential development, it would not result in any sprawl of the urban area given it is well contained between existing development. Green Belt Purpose (b) - To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Should the Site come forward for development, there is still a significant Green Belt gap between the urban area of Hartford and the urban area of area of Weaverham to the west (both forming part of the same settlement of Northwich). Taking account of the residential estate and school to the west, a gap of c. 750m is still maintained between Weaverham and Northwich.  The extent of the urban area would not be changed by the development of this Site (either taken alone or together with adjoining land to the north-east given its position within a nook), and nor would the gap between the settlements be reduced. The existing residential development to the west provides the existing delineation of the extent of the settlement. The development of this Site would not extend the development beyond the existing built envelope. Green Belt Purpose (d) - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Northwich is not a historic town as defined for the purposes of the Framework. The Site is therefore not considered to have any contribution to the setting and special character of historic towns. On this basis, we are of the view that the Site would meet the definition of grey belt and so could be considered for release from the Green Belt to meet the Council’s housing needs. 

Comment

Representation ID: 15095

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Asteer Planning

I&O_15654
Persimmon consider that the site could be included as part of potential growth location NOR09, in the case that this is pursued within the chosen spatial strategy. The exclusion of the site from NOR09 would create an isolated wedge of open countryside land, which forms no functional purpose as ‘open countryside’, wedged between the existing settlement boundary and proposed residential growth. Notwithstanding this and under any growth option, land at Fullerton Road should be identified as a suitable and deliverable infill site that does not contribute to the wider open countryside setting; and which would form a natural and logical extension to recent successful residential developments at Albermarle Avenue (Redrow Hartford) and Fullerton Road (developed by Persimmon). The settlement of Northwich also has a range of major physical and policy constraints along its settlement edges (as illustrated in the Constraints Map of Northwich at Figure 8.1 of the Issues and Options Consultation, included as Figure 3 below). These include the Green Belt which bounds the settlement to the north, Areas of Special County Value (“ASCV”) to the northeast and south of Northwich and key settlement gaps, particularly around the south of the settlement. These constraints bolster the importance of makingthe most use of vacant, underutilised infill sites which could deliver much-needed housing with a very limited impact on the settlement boundary or any of the major identified physical and policy constraints.