Comment

Representation ID: 2391

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Harry Johnson

NOR01
I&O_2520
- 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: 2394

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Clelland

NOR010
I&O_2523
No to NOR10 it’s home to badgers foxes and newts! just to list a few but I walk my dogs down this field with a lot of the village, the roads leading to it already aren’t suitable for the houses there now! Can’t fit two cars past Nevermind more houses, There’s kids groups that does nature walks down to the pond too, will be protesting and doing everything at my power to not let this go ahead along with the rest of the village, it would also devalue everyone’s homes with the nice views of the  very few fields left! People bought them houses for the view, as was greenbelt so should always be protected, amazed this area was proposed, nor12 planning seems a better option if any to be considered thanks for taking the time to read this.

Comment

Representation ID: 2462

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Debbie Cragg

I&O_2611
Hello I write to you with my concerns and objections for the proposed identified sites for building houses in the Weaverham area, especially the development off Sandy Lane/Station Road Weaverham. I have tried to complete your questions on the portal where 'the people' get their say. However, it's full of glitches, does not provide guidance for anyone who is not tec savvy and therefore eliminates a large cohort of the population! I would have thought as the local authority that there would have been a variety of mediums that supported the whole of our communities and each and every individual would be given the opportunity to have their say either for or against some of these ludicrous proposals. I have also submitted the attached document to Weaverham Parish Council and our local Cheshire West Councillor Cllr Gillian Edwards. In the attached I have not referenced the 'Solar Farm' which will put a huge burden on our infrastructure causing absolutely misery for residents across the whole of Cheshire West.  I would be interested to hear views of why there has not been consideration to building a new village/town with a thought out infrastructure, new schools, industry, roads, doctors etc. instead of creating an urban sprawl - destroying communities, history and many other factors as addressed in my correspondence. I understand that the current application for planning is not live, however as previously mentioned it's impossible to navigate the channel to comment and we have been advised by Cllr Gillian Edwards to use this email address.

Comment

Representation ID: 2463

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Debbie Cragg

I&O_2612
Please find below comments and thoughts in relation to the proposed residential development off Sandy Lane/Station Road Weaverham. This is a copy of an email that was sent to Cllr Gillian Edwards with objections/concerns with regards to the said proposal. I’m writing as a resident of Station Road, Weaverham to raise concerns about the proposed housing development on the farmland directly opposite my home. We have only recently (April) moved to the village and bought the property due to its semi rural location... This land represents more than open fields—it’s a vital green space that preserves our village’s rural character and environmental balance. Replacing it with dense development would not only strip away biodiversity and increase pollution, but also diminish residents’ everyday access to nature. Families walk past these fields, children play nearby, and people find moments of calm simply by looking out their windows. That connection to the outdoors is essential to both wellbeing and the identity of our community. Many of us worry that we’re trading long-term health and harmony for short-term expansion—and that neighbouring homes will suffer loss of value as their open outlook and peaceful surroundings vanish.  Please find below my key concerns and I am sure that there will be many more to add: Key Concerns: Public services and infrastructure: Local schools are at capacity, and securing NHS dental and GP appointments is increasingly difficult. Additional housing will place further strain on these essential services, which already struggle to meet demand. Power line safety: Major electricity transmission lines cross the proposed site. There’s been no indication of how these will be handled—whether they’ll be rerouted or remain in place—and what safety measures will be implemented. Environmental impact: The farmland offers vital habitat for wildlife and is part of the area's rural character. Its loss would significantly affect local biodiversity, landscape, and the community’s visual amenity. Flooding and drainage: I’d like to understand whether a full flood risk and drainage assessment has been carried out. Changing the land use may increase runoff and affect neighbouring properties. Traffic and transport access: Increased traffic volume raises concerns for road safety, especially for children and pedestrians. Limited public transport infrastructure may worsen congestion and emissions. Planning scope and precedent: I’m concerned this development sets a precedent for further loss of green space. Without local job creation, it risks turning the area into a commuter settlement, increasing pressure on regional transport and reducing community cohesion. Consultation and transparency: There’s uncertainty among residents about the proposal’s scope and timeline. We’d welcome clarity on how and when the community will be formally consulted, and how our views will be considered. I do understand that we can comment on Cheshire West through their portal. I understand the need to balance housing needs with thoughtful development—but I strongly believe this proposal warrants deeper scrutiny and more active engagement with the community. We would also like to highlight other concerns raised by another resident from Weaverham that have highlighted other objections/concerned that we feel are valid reasons to seriously not develop this piece of land. I have taken out the points that are feel are no relevant, therefore the numbering format does not follow: Does the current sewerage (foul water) treatment plant have sufficient capacity to take the additional discharge? The storm water discharge would go into the River Weaver at a point near to Sandy Lane Equestrian Centre. Do current drainage installations have sufficient capacity or is upgrading required? Is there spare capacity in the sewerage system leading to the treatment plant or is a new piped network required off-site to the treatment plant? For new installations do any applicants have way leaves or agreements over land that they do not control? What discharge control will be necessary to keep storm water volumes in the current accepted time-of-concentration for run-off? Will any works be required for off-site storm water drainage related works? Approach roads and wayleaves? Utility services for communications, water supply, gas supply and electricity supply would all come from current installations within the current settlement area. What upgrading and cost sharing will be expected from developers. How will consequential off-site utility disruption be accommodated? For both frontages to the road network widening to 7.3m and footways will be required. Are any provisions being considered for a cycle lane? On an area wide or village wide position these are additional points for consideration. Given the increased traffic and the disruption and road widening required will CWAC require a Section 106 agreement? Such agreement would of basic necessity include: Resurfacing of roads in the area I. Extents. The extent of road reconstruction or full-width resurfacing will need to be, at a minimum, along the entire frontage of the site(s) including the junction of Station Road / B5144 at the Hanging Gate and the junction of B5144 / High Street. Surfacing and or reconstruction is warranted for a minimum of 40m to 50m into the linking roads. II. Given the potential increase in (new) local residents using existing community facilities, area-wide improvements are warranted. The Barratt development is approximately a 7% increase on the existing settlement population. A Section 106 Agreement should be secured from the developer to contribute to the improvement to amenities in the village centre covering the avenue of shops on Northwich Road, reconstruction of the frontage roads and the reconstruction of the car park to the rear, this is a private road and car park but appropriate arrangement can be reached as has been successfully done elsewhere. Additionally, a review of the condition of High Street is required to prolong its useful life (attending to condition of footways, kerbs and potholes) III. An area wide assessment is warranted to identify incidental measures to accommodate the potential 7% increase in dwellings. Part 1 and Part2 of the CWAC Local plan has a lot of platitudes and many reference to could, would, should, consider, etc, etc. However, there is very little care given to key issues that will affect the residents of Weaverham and the wider Northwich catchment.

Comment

Representation ID: 2503

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Carroll

NOR10
I&O_2655
With reference to the local housing plan for Weaverham, Cheshire. I am strongly against the NOR10 as this covers the wooded area south of Weaverham which is a lovely place. Well used by locals and with an orchard dedicated to those who gave their lives in the wars. When we first moved to Weaverham it was on day 1 that we walked the woods. Such a lovely peaceful place, bird song and wild rabbits. A place where dogs can be let off the lead without fear of them running into roads   NOR12 is in the flood plane and would not be suitable to be built on. Weaverham currently has over 6000 inhabitants, adding more houses could push the Village status into a town. Definitely not something anyone wants. It is a village surrounded by fields with a break in houses before you get into the next village. It is whole in the green belt. Having lived in St Helens Merseyside and in Halewood Liverpool, all areas merge together into one, no distinction between areas. Just houses on top of houses on top of more houses. There are other areas around Northwich there no in the green belt where building houses would have benefit.  These should looked into before destroying the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2520

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Wendy Capelle

NOR01
I&O_2673
- 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: 2535

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Nick Herrod

NOR01
I&O_2688
NOR01 – North East of Barnton : While currently designated Green Belt, this site’s proximity to the A559 and existing village facilities, along with minimal landscape impact, could allow it to accommodate a mix of housing in line with Local Plan requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 2543

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Diana Burrows

I&O_2696
[We] have lived at our home on [redacted] Weaverham for the past 42 years.   We have in that time seen many changes around us but sadly it seems that even more are potentially on the way which could have a very negative impact on our community.    My motive for writing is purely concern for the effect this development could have should it go ahead.     We moved into our home in August 1983 and the village was a delight to be in.  Our doctor's practice was in a small bungalow near the shops and no appointment was necessary, you just walked in, sat down and before long you would be asked who you would like to see.      Now we have moved to another practice because it is difficult to get an appointment, a wait of weeks awaits anyone needing to see a doctor, even speaking to one is also  difficult. Last March my wife had a stroke and as she was near the shops she called in to see the pharmacist who took her blood pressure straight away. It was very high so he wrote her a quick letter and sent her to the surgery which was only yards away.  The letter was a request for her to be seen by a doctor asap.      The waiting room was empty and the receptionist immediately took it to a doctor.     He read the letter and told her that he would not see her then but would ring my wife in the evening.   That never happened.     Later that evening my wife was rushed into Leighton Hospital as an emergency case. I mention this because in my view it illustrates the effect of a rapidly growing population in our community which for one thing has overburdened the Weaverham GP practice.   I dread to think of hundreds of people joining our community and adding to the already existing problem.  I leave it to one's imagination as to how this would affect our infrastructure. We do not belong to the NIMBY advocates.    Our main concern is how badly our village would suffer in every aspect if permission was granted for this proposed development to go ahead.   Our home would have this development right next to our large garden both on the north side and on the west side.    I know that other concerned people will write more eloquently than me, I only had a basic education whereas others have enjoyed University educations and it shows.     Developers are only interested in how much they will make and have no interest in the effects of their developments.  There are many examples in the UK of developers promising to improve the infrastructures if  permission to build is given, sadly I have not been made aware of these promises being kept and we have one local example in Winnington.    Weaverham is creaking under the over burdened infrastructure as it is,  I know that other writers will be outlining all the many problems that will be imposed here so I don't feel that my contribution would be of much use.   I have seen one example of a couple down the road who have written to Weaverham Parish Council with a brilliant letter,  I remember thinking how I wish I could write as eloquently as they did. Yes I understand that more homes are needed but to try to build them near inadequate infrastructures is going to cause massive problems for the existing residents.   I watched the development of the Shopping City and the large number of homes near Runcorn.  I was working on the farm whose land was taken and developed and it was so sad to see all the wonderful wildlife vanish, once it goes it never returns.  At least there the infrastructure  was  improved by the addition of many shops and other services.      But now it seems that this is a thing of the past and developers are not interested in helping with any improvements to go with their developments.      In my view the Government should stipulate that permission to build is granted only after the developer has undertaken and built improvements to the existing infrastructure.   We would like to think that the situation is not going to be made even more intolerable as we grow even older, I am aged 80 and my wife is 77 years old. We have been married for 58 years now and have loved living in our village these past 42 years, even though we have seen things going downhill. As developments around us have led to a huge strain on everything in the village as the population expands, we would love to think that this situation will not be made even more intolerable with a development of 200 and up to 400 more homes as we were made aware at the Parish Council meeting this morning.

Comment

Representation ID: 2544

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Bill Stovell

NOR06
I&O_2697
I'm writing to you to oppose the proposed new home building plans ref NOR 06 We already have overstretched medical and dental services plus our local schools and childcare facilities are at their limits. Our roads and drains are seriously dilapidated and additional traffic will only worsen this situation. I believe it's also very irresponsible to build on farmland as well, we should be protecting our wildlife and food security for the future.  I would ask that CWAC explore more appropriate sites where these issues are manageable.

Comment

Representation ID: 2546

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Shakeshaft

NOR06, NOR01
I&O_2699
Also i could see no mention of large brownfield sites , these should be developed first, for example, Winnington works in Northwich whilst a prime example, is close to a crumbling narrow bridge to Barnton which was not replaced when Wallerscote works were developed. The road to Northwich is already congested ,  not helped by a badly designed one way system in Northwich . Northwich town centre is an area what could be developed. There are opportunties to revitalise the town centre here. Demolish all those commercial units with their back to the river on High street, build properties such as town houses facing the river, and relocate those businesses to Barons Quay. It is vital for  communities to retain their sense of identity, so further development must cease in Davenham, ( why is Davenham Nor06 even in the three options) which is already congested, and cannot currently cope with the traffic. Current infrastructure is also at max capacity.  The boundaries of Davenham , Moulton and Winsford have already almost disappeared. And yet CWAC have ringfenced Nor06 as a possible development area. Davenham will cease to be a village, in fact it probably has now due to current overdevelopment.  Yet CWAC feels the need to identify another area, NOR06 for possible development, this will leave no green areas in Davenham at all. I also do not understand the seemingly arbritary green belt, it all seems to be in one half of Cheshire west , so again a disproportionate area. Bostock  village has had no development at all in recent years, the bypass has already divided it from Davenham, so further development here would make more sense. So development on the Bostock side of the A533 would not detrimentally inpact Davenham, as would more development in Davenham. I note there are pockets of Cheshire including Bostock which seem to have escaped almost any development. Comberbach is another example, yet its is closer to the M56 than Davenham and Northwich. Nor01 would make more sense for development than the already overdeveloped area of Northwich and Winsford. It is closer to the M56 and M6 as i have already mentioned with regards to Comberbach. And it would not necessarily inpact Barnton as a new village next to Barnton could be established. Has anyone considered all the land freed up by the discontinuation of HS2 ? Foe example, Whatcroft hall is close to a main road, and with its land is an area that could be developed. I assume its still owned by HS2, and is no longer needed. Rather than look at further congesting already over developed parts of Cheshire West can we please look at new areas which are not neccessarily that far from a major road but have development opportunities. Villages such as Davenham and Moulton have already been disproportionately affected by recent development. Our villages eroded, and no new infrastructure to support this development. There is virtually no settlement gap left between Davenham , Moulton amd Winsford.

Comment

Representation ID: 2552

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Dawn Zaman

NOR01
I&O_2705
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: 2554

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Stovell

NOR06
I&O_2707
England has a housing crises, few disagree. People are crying out for more genuinely affordable  homes and homes for social rent.  Building on rural or semi rural agricultural land creates very little of either.  New homes need to be near where people currently live, where they work and where their children go to school. Therefore, I wish to oppose the proposal to build new houses in the Local Plan for Norwich NOR06 to the south east of Norwich for the following reasons:- TRANSPORT Davenham is a small village with an already traffic problem area in the centre of the village. The surrounding roads are often frequently jammed.  There is no local train station and there is only an hourly bus service to Winsford and Crewe so this would mean lots more cars on the road and severe traffic congestion.   VALUABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND The land is high grade farmland, two rivers that often flood.  The area chosen serves an important function in mitigating flood risk.  I want to maintain agricultural land to provide food for the growing population, not have to import food from overseas. INFRASTRUCTURE In Davenham, there are no doctor surgeries, no dentists, nearly full schools.  We already  have to travel into Norwich to the doctors, if we can get an appointment at all.  This will only be made worse by increasing the local population and lots more cars on the roads. The drains and electricity supply often fail in this area due to age and lack of maintenance.  Adding additional properties will make this a lot worse. SUMMARY Smaller, more appropriate applications aligned with the character of the village would be much more acceptable to the village that we have and wish to keep. For these reasons, I request CWAC to exclude any large developments being proposed in and around Davenham in the final Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 2555

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Nigel James Ford

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_2708
I and my family would like to object strongly to the recently published local plan in regards to OR06 and NOR07 This plan in its current form is completely out of character with the ancient village of Davenham. Its proposed size would nearly double the size of the village, and overwhelm our local services. It would destroy an area which is well used for green space walking by local residents. This area is also actively farmed with at least four cuts for silage annually. Davenham is a conservation areas, and this plan would be totally against the spirit of this concept. The field is home to many animals including hares. Is this area not designated as green belt . Davenham Hall is a heritage asset and listed building.It should be maintained in its parkland setting.Not surrounded by new build houses . In short this plan is totally out of proportion to the size and character of the village,and at least needs substantial revision.

Comment

Representation ID: 2621

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Shakeshaft

I&O_2774
Please develop brown field sites as priority along with Northwich town centre regeneration. There's potential for many years future development on those areas without further destruction of green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 2647

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Agent: Richard Lee Project Planning

Question SS 30
I&O_2800
It is noted that some broad potential growth areas are indicated for Northwich that include land around Weaverham. The rationale for identifying these sites is also applicable to the land submitted for consideration on the eastern edge of Weaverham at Beach Farm, off Wallerscote Road (Site reference: 1534). Housing development at Beach Farm would be of a more appropriate scale for Weaverham. The site is well contained and is better located than some of the alternatives indicated. It should therefore replace some of the areas shown around the village. The allocation and development of smaller, contained and deliverable, edge of settlement sites would also help to reduce the impact of urban sprawl. It would also widen the market and reduce delivery risks/delays often associated with the larger sites. Beach Farm is a relatively small land holding for commercial farming activity and is low quality - Grade 3. Compared with other potential sites indicated around Weaverham, the Beach Farm site is less viable agriculturally. In fact, Beach Farm has ceased operating as an agricultural enterprise. This site, and the Council owned land immediately to the north, could reasonably be classed as “Grey Belt”. A planning application will be submitted for the Beach Farm site by mid-September following consideration of a public consultation exercise that has now been completed. This will include surveys and assessments that demonstrate the suitability of the site for housing development and how environment and technical issues will be addressed. The site is owned by developers, and it is available and deliverable in the short term.

Comment

Representation ID: 2737

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Thiemicke

Question SS 30
I&O_2903
No further development should be allowed in Winnington/Barnton until a new river crossing is built. (Any new bridge should be toll-free, unlike the Runcorn/Widnes ones)

Comment

Representation ID: 2873

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Barker

I&O_3044
I would strongly like to oppose more houses being built in our village. I moved here 24 years ago and already the area has outgrown its facilities, it is not safe to cross roads especially with children or the elderly. More houses would change the character once again of our village. Please listen to what the residents are telling you.

Comment

Representation ID: 2877

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Barry Melia

I&O_3048
There is land available to the North East of Barnton with access to the A49, plus Barnton has some infrastructure, i.e. shopping and doctors.

Comment

Representation ID: 2957

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Ashton

I&O_3131
I wish to comment on the above local plan now that I'm aware of what's being promoted. To this end, I'll firstly provide specific comments pertaining to Davenham and secondly, those to the wider area surrounding Northwich.  Davenham Specific.  Davenham (currently) consists of approx 1300 dwellings; what is being proposed by NOR06/ NOR07 alone would double that number. Without question, that will have a dramatic, negative effect on the rural nature of the village.  These numbers illustrate that the proposed developments are entirely disproportionate to the village's size & setting and completely undermines any attempt to preserve the character of the village including severely impacting access to green spaces. Further, they diminish any attempt to protect  biodiversity and the ecosystem in the immediate area including meeting any objectives for 'sustainability'. All of the 3 proposed areas are on active and prime agricultural land. None of them can be classified as  'brownfield' areas  which must be THE prime decision factor in any housing development strategy. Incidentally, any buildings on the land are for farming that land only, not 'general industry'.  If these new properties were built, the natural expectation is that the children living in these dwellings would go to Davenham Primary School. This is not feasible as the school is currently at full capacity and vehicular access to it is already fraught. With specific reference to NOR07, access to this land can only be via Eaton Lane and Hartford Road; there is no other feasible alternative as the topography of the land between it and the A556 make this highly impractical (and therefore disproportionately costly). The current volume of traffic on Hartford Road is considerable; during the construction phase, there will be substantial numbers of HGVs/ Building Equipment  having to navigate past parked vehicles along a narrow road. After construction, the extra volume of traffic on Hartford Road will become intolerable,  congested and further erode any semblance of 'rural' Davenham. The junction between Hartford Road and Mount Pleasant for school access is already dangerous and granting NOR06/7/8 will only exacerbate the situation.  I live under the flight path to Manchester Airport so the increased noise and air pollution from an additional 500 cars (assuming 1 car per dwelling for NOR07) will not be conducive to good mental or physical health. Likewise the removal of green spaces should the potential developments go ahead. Incidentally, the impact to the east of the village of any speculated  'Northern Powerhouse Rail Project' should not be underestimated too - especially if the construction phases are coincidental.  WIder Considerations Use of existing brownfield space must be considered first before consumption of existing greenfield areas. Once consumed, that's it forever!.  To that end, the continued regeneration of Northwich Town Centre and extension of Winnington Village should be undertaken to provide the required dwellings. This strategy alone will have minimal impact for the greatest benefit when assessed against criteria judging  a proposed development. They would also provide the greatest opportunity for badly needed 'mixed use/ social housing developments'. This might not fully meet the commercial aspirations of developers but there are larger,  more important considerations in play. i.e. reduction in green spaces, preserving the characteristics of our villages and not overwhelming already 'at breaking point'  services and infrastructure.  It's not difficult to understand why potential developers want to build near major 'A' roads but the A556 at Davenham is already heavily congested and from my house a constant background noise.  I would therefore urge CW&C to explore the expansion of two existing developments near other A roads with  excellent transport links. Weaverham already has good infrastructure and capacity for further growth. It has excellent access to the A49 which isn't as congested as the A556. It's also a shorter, quicker and uncongested route to the motorway network from Weaverham than it is from Davenham. Expansion of the greenbelt site (ie it's already in progress, not new) to the northeast of Barnton (which can deliver mixed housing needs) should be considered as  the A559/ A533 also  provides good access to the A49 and onwards.  There is also good access to Barnton's existing village facilities. Of the three potential developments near Davenham, NOR08 would seem to have least impact on the village itself.  It's a relatively flat, isolated piece of land with the opportunity to provide ready access to the A556. There is also potential (afterwards) for further expansion westwards along the A556 'corridor' without impinging on any dwellings.  However, as with NOR06/7, it increases congestion on the road and will exacerbate pressure on already strained schools, doctors and other services in the area. I'm also aware of a potential Hydrogen Gas link crossing the land which would be a  significant safety consideration.  I understand and accept that some additional housing is required (though in reality the birthrate in the UK is declining and the numbers of required dwellings should be reassessed). Davenham itself is facing some more immediate housing developments too and from what I've read and seen, seem more proportionate, sensitive and sympathetic to the village's capacity, character and services infrastructure.  The potential for NOR06/7/8 is not proportionate as they (a) erode the character of the village, (b) put pressure on existing services and roads and (c) impacts prime agricultural land. Finally, I'm a keen ornithologist and Eaton Lane with its open fields is one of the few local areas suitable for Skylarks. They have always nested in those fields and flown in that sky since I can remember.  Building on these areas will continue the onslaught on their habitat and other multiple other species with the removal of trees, hedges and other elements of habitat. For the above reasons I strongly urge that all current proposals for such overwhelming, disproportionate developments in Davenham be removed or significantly scaled back in the final local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 2980

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Conboy

I&O_3154
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: 2989

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Large

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_3163
NOR06 - NOR07 Davenham is a historic village with a strong sense of identity and a designated Conservation Area. The proposed developments would dramatically alter the rural character of the village, and risk encroachment on heritage assets and open spaces valued by the community. The scale of development proposed is entirely disproportionate to the village’s size and setting  Davenham’s existing infrastructure is already operating at or near capacity. The road network,particularly the A556, Hartford Road, and London Road, suffers from heavy congestion, and further development would exacerbate traffic, air quality, and safety concerns. Public transport provision is minimal, and additional residents would place unsustainable pressure on limited local bus services. The sites identified include areas at risk of flooding or on land that serves an important function in mitigating local flood risk. Any development here would increase surface water run-off and impact local watercourses. Furthermore, there would be a loss of biodiversity and greenfield land, contrary to sustainability objectives. I am aware of planning applications and interest from developers that are more aligned with the scale and character of the village. These include a current application submitted by Wain Estates, a pre-application from Stonhams, and a small development at Bostock Green collectively involving around 200 dwellings. These proposals would be more proportionate to Davenham’s capacity and infrastructure and would be more likely to receive support, provided they are delivered with appropriate design, infrastructure investment, and sensitivity to the village setting. For these reasons, I would urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reconsider the proposed development allocations within the parish. I request that all current proposals for large-scale residential development in Davenham be removed or significantly scaled back in the final Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 2990

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Oakes

I&O_3164
I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed addition of further housing in Davenham, as outlined in the current Neighbourhood Plan. As a parent and resident, I am extremely concerned about the serious safety risks this poses — particularly for children — as well as the damage it will do to the unique community spirit that makes Davenham such a special place to live. Our roads are already dangerously congested. Parked cars line every street, turning residential roads into unsafe, single-lane bottlenecks. Visibility is poor, pavements are often blocked, and crossing the road – especially for children walking to school – is becoming increasingly hazardous. It is simply not acceptable to add more homes, and therefore more cars, into an area that clearly cannot cope with existing traffic levels. Beyond safety, these proposals threaten the very heart of our community. Davenham has always had a strong village identity — a place where neighbours know each other, where families feel safe, and where children can play outdoors without fear. This is rapidly disappearing. Overdevelopment is pushing the village to a breaking point, not just in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of community cohesion and overall quality of life. More houses will mean more traffic, more strain on local services, and more pressure on already stretched facilities – but far less of the village atmosphere we all value. The enjoyment of living in Davenham is being destroyed by unchecked growth. We are not opposed to progress – but it must be responsible, balanced, and in keeping with the village’s character. Right now, this plan does none of those things. It puts our children's safety at risk, and it risks dismantling the community we have worked hard to build. I urge you to reject any further housing developments until serious steps are taken to address road safety, traffic management, and community impact. Please confirm that my concerns have been formally recorded and will be taken into account in your ongoing deliberations.

Comment

Representation ID: 3017

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Field

NOR06, NOR07, NOR08
I&O_3191
As a resident of Davenham I'd like to draw your attention to the following points which emphasise reasons why these Growth Areas should not be adopted Local roads - with reference  to NOR06 and NOR07 particularly the local road network, London Road and Hartford Road Davenham, are already congested at busy times and the additional housing would make these unusable and unsafe. There is no obvious way of improving these residential streets to cater for more traffic. A556  - with reference to all three Growth Areas, again at busy times this major artery is already congested with queueing stationary traffic at the two roundabouts and three sets of traffic lights between School Road Hartford and King Street Northwich. There is no capacity left in the road. Schools, doctors and dentists - 2,200 additional homes are estimated on the proposal - that could be 4,000 people and 2,000 children needing services. Schools are full, there is no doctor in Davenham and dentists are under similar pressure. Water, sewerage, electricity and gas provision would similarly be under considerable strain. Loss of amenities - referring to NOR07 and NOR08 particularly. These are currently countryside and farming areas with Grade 1 Agricultural land surrounded by woodland and footpaths going down to the River Weaver and Vale Royal Locks. They give valuable recreational and mental health provision to the residents of the village and during Covid especially they were much used, being adjacent to the as village as we were not allowed to travel. In addition, covering these areas with housing and roads would increase the risk of flooding to Eaton Lane and Hartford Road, already vulnerable as has been shown in recent winter storms. In conclusion, doubling the size of the village would be detrimental not only for the residents of the area, but those attempting to pass through on the main routes north south and east west to the parts of Cheshire and beyond - and it may even put off people moving to the area!

Comment

Representation ID: 3044

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Crabtree

NOR01
I&O_3218
NOR01 – North East of Barnton : While currently designated Green Belt, this site’s proximity to the A559 and existing village facilities, along with minimal landscape impact, could allow it to accommodate a mix of housing in line with Local Plan requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 3119

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3293
Yes. Several of the potential growth areas identified around Northwich are fundamentally unsuitable, particularly NOR11 (Weaverham) . 1. Green Belt permanence NOR11 lies entirely within the North Cheshire Green Belt . Release here would contradict the NPPF (2024) , which confirms that unmet housing need does not in itself constitute “exceptional circumstances.” The Inspector for the previous Local Plan concluded that further Green Belt release around Northwich would have significant adverse effects and that the amended boundaries were capable of enduring well beyond 2030. 2. Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Appropriate Assessment The HRA Screening (June 2025) identifies potential risks of cumulative harm in the Northwich/Weaverham/Acton Bridge area, particularly from traffic emissions, recreational pressure, and water pollution . These impacts are not ruled out with certainty and are recorded as areas of uncertainty . Under the legal precautionary principle , uncertainty must be treated as risk. Legal compliance – Habitats Regulations: The Habitats Regulations (Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended) require that where a plan may have a likely significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination, it must be subject to Appropriate Assessment (AA) . The Local Plan cannot lawfully progress allocations such as NOR11 without first undertaking AA. Moreover, it is doubtful that AA could demonstrate beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of nearby European sites. Allocation of NOR11 without AA would therefore be unlawful and render the Local Plan open to legal challenge. 3. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and treatment of uncertainty The SA (June 2025) scores Weaverham and other edge-of-Northwich sites poorly for transport, landscape, and biodiversity . Several criteria are scored as “uncertain.” In line with the precautionary principle, these must be treated as negative until disproved . NOR11 therefore fails both the SA and HRA tests. 4. Unsustainable transport dependency Reliance on proximity to Acton Bridge station is misplaced. The station is: unmanned, without step-free access, has limited parking, and offers infrequent services. Development here would remain car-dependent , undermining the Council’s climate commitments and directly conflicting with SA objectives for sustainable transport. 5. Infrastructure deficits The wider Northwich area already suffers from severe congestion and poor highway capacity . The A49 corridor is a long-standing bottleneck with limited scope for improvement; additional housing from NOR11 would compound these pressures. Similarly, the Winnington swing bridge and Barnton tunnel crossings already experience chronic traffic queues and air quality concerns. Adding significant new housing in Weaverham would feed into these constrained networks and worsen conditions for existing residents. Local schools, GP surgeries, and utilities are also under pressure, meaning that further growth in NOR11 would outstrip existing infrastructure capacity . These deficits are already acknowledged in the SA, and given many uncertainties, they should be treated as negative impacts . 6. Loss of agricultural land and coalescence NOR11 is productive farmland, contributing to local food security and climate resilience. Development would erode the open gap separating Weaverham and Acton Bridge , leading to creeping coalescence and permanent loss of local identity. There are a number of sustainable projects in NOR11 that would be fundamentally impacted should development go ahead. These projects seek to increase habitat and biodiversity. So far 4,000 trees have been planted and a further 4,000 are planned. These projects would close when faced with this kind of development. Conclusion: On the evidence of both the HRA Screening (June 2025) and the SA (June 2025) , NOR11 cannot lawfully or sustainably be taken forward: The HRA requires Appropriate Assessment due to identified risks, and AA is unlikely to conclude no adverse effects. Under the precautionary principle, uncertainty must be scored as negative , ruling out NOR11. The site also fails on Green Belt, transport, infrastructure, and character grounds, including specific deficits on the A49 corridor, Winnington swing bridge, and Barnton tunnel .

Comment

Representation ID: 3168

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Dominic Lonsdale

NOR01
I&O_3342
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: 3171

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Lonsdale

NOR01
I&O_3345
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: 3183

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Acton Bridge Parish Council

Map 5.6
I&O_3357
We are concerned that NOR11 significantly reduces the separation between Acton Bridge and Weaverham. The distinctive identity of Acton Bridge could easily be lost. We are also concerned that NOR11 also covers an area along Sandy Lane which has been extensively flooded by the River Weaver in 2021 and again nearly flooded in 2023.  NOR 12 covers an area which appears to be in the floodplain of the River Weaver. We are unable to say whether flooding occurred in this area in 2021 or 2023 but fear it may have done. Development in NOR11 should be reduced from that shown and constrained to be closer to weaverahm as it currently exists.

Comment

Representation ID: 3371

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Angela Wright

I&O_3545
Northwich town centre needs to be totally rejuvenated before any further developments take place in order to support the large influx of extra population.  The one way traffic system causes long delays at present and would only worsen with increased traffic

Comment

Representation ID: 3374

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Coxon

NOR01
I&O_3548
NORO1: Although a Greenbelt site the expansion to the North East of Barnton should be considered. Its proximity to the A559, a major transport link is a major factor and would also serve to provide access to village facilities.