Comment

Representation ID: 3394

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3568
Re NOR09 & NOR08 Hartford has had extensive building over recent years, I think about a 1000 additional homes? The congestion is already appalling, schools oversubscribed. I do not believe we need more big houses in Hartford, they are unaffordable for many people, likely to have at least 2 cars per property (adverse impact on air quality and climate) and will lead to further loss of the distintive nature of this area.  Development here will not be sustainable, is likly to lead to flood risk and will not provide the sort of housing needed to solve the housing problems this country faces

Comment

Representation ID: 3470

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Gary Nunn

Question SS 30
I&O_3644
RE: 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: 3473

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Evans

I&O_3647
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: 3483

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs S Watson

I&O_3657
I live in Hartford, Northwich. Over the past 10–20 years, this former village has expanded significantly, placing huge strain on traffic, education, and local services. The area now has: One small affordable shop surrounded by mainly high-end outlets. Two pubs serving food and one costly “drinker’s pub” with limited hours. No local GP practice and no accessible NHS dental provision. The green belt land behind Chester Road, towards Weaverham, appears in all three options. I strongly suspect this would result in a development of 500+ houses, likely a mix of expensive 4–5 bed homes and some “affordable” housing, with access via Chester Road. Key Concerns Traffic  At peak times, Hartford roads are already gridlocked, with 20-minute journeys over short distances. Previous traffic surveys (e.g. by Redrow) were carried out in school holidays, giving a misleading picture. Access onto the A556 is already problematic. Vehicles cannot turn right towards Chester, forcing traffic through Hartford village instead, increasing congestion, pollution, and safety risks. Any new development would push roads beyond breaking point. Schools & Education Local primary schools are already full. Secondary schools are under pressure, with places at Hartford and Leftwich heavily oversubscribed. Sixth-form and vocational options are limited since the closure of the local college; young people now face long, unreliable journeys to Crewe, Warrington, or Winsford.  Transport  Rail services from Hartford/Greenbank are sparse and plagued by cancellations. Buses remain infrequent and delayed by existing congestion.  Employment Hartford does not have sufficient local jobs to support significant new housing. Most residents already commute to Manchester, Chester, Warrington, or Liverpool.  Facilities Sports clubs exist but are costly; affordable facilities are scarce. Scouts and similar groups are oversubscribed with long waiting lists. Parking is already inadequate for existing shops. No public toilets are available in the village.  Infrastructure & Safety Access points risk creating dangerous rat-runs through narrow, unsuitable residential roads.  Hartford already suffers from potholes, flooding, and poor road maintenance, all of which would worsen with further development.  Urban Sprawl & Environment Large-scale development on green belt land contributes to urban sprawl, eroding the character of Hartford and blurring the boundaries between distinct communities. Once green belt is lost, it is gone forever. This land provides vital open space, biodiversity, and natural drainage, all of which are increasingly important in combating climate change and flood risk. Building here will increase car dependency, as Hartford lacks sustainable transport options, directly undermining both local and national climate objectives.  Better Alternatives – Brownfield Regeneration Development should prioritise brownfield sites and underused urban areas where infrastructure, transport, and jobs already exist. Regenerating these sites would protect green belt land, revitalise town centres, and reduce the need for unsustainable commuting. This approach meets housing targets while supporting sustainable development and preventing the irreversible damage of urban sprawl.  Conclusion Until CWAC can provide clear, practical solutions to these issues, no further large-scale development should be considered in Hartford. I feel deeply let down that CWAC has not challenged unrealistic housing numbers and has instead targeted green belt land in areas that lack the infrastructure to cope. New homes should be located where jobs, transport, and facilities already exist—not in communities already struggling and at the expense of the environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 3487

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Daniel Oates

NOR01
I&O_3661
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: 3560

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3734
Northwich town centre is very poor and could be developed to attract more business and shops. Large shops remain empty and provides a ver poor impression for residents and visitors

Comment

Representation ID: 4052

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4260
Little Leigh Parish Council notes that the potential development area NOR01 would appear to double the size of Barnton and we query whether the local services would be capable of commensurate expansion. Otherwise, new residents would be reliant on Northwich Town, with travel every time across the very old, single-track Winnington Swing Bridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 4317

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Sharon Galloway

NOR01
I&O_4546
NOR01  - the area to the north east of Barnton should be considered - although currently green belt, it does have proximity to the A559 and existing village facilities.This would have limited impact on the surrounding area. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4321

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Gidley

I&O_4550
I wish to register my whole hearted support for Plan A in the current consultation on the new Local Plan for Weaverham. Plan A represents the most sustainable and appropriate option for the village. It rightly protects the Green Belt and respects the scale and nature of the community.  It acknowledges the infrastructure pressures already arising from recent developments in Winnington and Wallerscote Salt works. Reasons for supporting Plan A include : - Preserving the Green Belt to prevent overdevelopment, protect the countryside and retain separation from neighbouring communities. Never has our green space been valued and proved more necessary than in the Covid epidemic. Weaverham should not become a suburb of Northwich .  Avoiding already unsustainable pressure on roads Our local GP practice is under huge pressure to cope with demand and local services are struggling to cope.  Protecting agricultural land which  is so important for our country to be more self sufficient in growing and producing our own food, besides protecting biodiversity and local habitats   Weaverham is an ancient village and it's historic rural identity should be preserved.  Where appropriate brownfield development and urban intensification should be prioritized  Plan A offers the most proportionate approach to housing without sacrificing the long term sustainability and character of the village of Weaverham. I urge CWAC to adopt Plan A as the preferred spatial strategy for Weaverham in the finalized Local Plan.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4323

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: David Bibby

NOR01
I&O_4552
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: 4340

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: S Turner

NOR06 / NOR07 / NOR08
I&O_4569
Following on from attending a consultation update regarding the proposed sites in and around Davenham, I would like to submit my objection for the 3 main zones marked on the consultation paper – NOR06 / 07 / 08 Davenham in particular has grown over the years from a small village which the infrastructure was fairly adequate – schools, shops, highways, playing fields etc.  However new houses that have emerged over the years have now stretched Davenham to full capacity.   The proposed number of houses being suggested would be disastrous for the residents of Davenham and clearly the village would not be able to cope with an increased population with regards schools, more traffic etc plus we no longer have a Dr’s surgery in the village. I would suggest another location that has a better infrastructure and is able to expand without putting immense pressure on the current services a better option.

Comment

Representation ID: 4343

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Madeline Turner

NOR06 / NOR07 / NOR08
I&O_4572
After attending a consultation concerning the planned builds in davenham, I would like to formally object to the 3 main zones marked on the consultation paper (NOR06 / NOR07 / NOR08) I am a resident of Davenham and have had first hand experience of the impact of the villages growth over the years and I believe it is now at full capacity. With numerous schools around the area davenham is extremely busy with traffic at school times. The village does not have the correct infrastructure to facilitate even more traffic as a consequence of the planned houses to be built. Furthermore I believe the pressure placed on the small businesses throughout the village would be catastrophic and there are other areas of northwich which would be more suitable to facilitate this growth. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4369

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Spare

I&O_4598
There are locations in and around Northwich where new developments would meet the Local Plan principles and criteria much better than in a village such as Davenham.  For example: Land in Winnington where the former industrial site is being cleared. Land around the river Weaver that has been vacated by the  Canal and River Trust such as Navigation Road. The area behind the derelict building at the bottom of Winnington hill, on the north bank of the Weaver – opposite the Bull Ring. Land on the north side of Manchester Road, east of the retail park by Wincham Brook up to the Trent and Mersey Canal. The group of abandoned units in the Town centre around the old market. The Rose meadow development. Griffiths Road opposite the lime beds there has been serious flooding around the junction of Eaton Land and Hartford – below the site where NOR07 is proposed.  Increased areas of tarmac and concrete will magnify this problem.   A similar situation would arise on the north side of NOR06.  The land falls steeply down to Elderbriar brook.  This would be overwhelmed with substantial surface water.  It feeds into the River Dane near the old stone bridge and this area has seen a broad area of flooded farmland in recent years.

Comment

Representation ID: 4432

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth and Mike Smith

NOR06, NOR07, NOR08
I&O_4673
In 1994 2000 new homes were built at Kingsmead in the parish of Davenham and at a later date the residents of Kingsmead decided that the parish of Davenham did not fulfil their requirements and voted to break from the Davenham Parish Council and become the Kingsmead Parish Council.  I believe that in building 800 plus houses on NOR06 a similar outcome would occur.  I believe that Davenham has already far exceeded its proportion of new dwellings in relation to other areas of the county and that these developments should be sited elsewhere. NOR06 The area outlined includes part of the conservation are off Church Street, a Grade 2** list house and parkland.  Views across said parkland and hall which form and intrinsic part of Davenham village, from The Grove, Parson’s Court and Shipbrook Hill Farm.  Such a large number of houses sending vehicles onto London Road would increase the traffic thorough the village when a bi pass has been built to protect the village centre.  Planning permission has been applied for a care home on part of this land therefor fewer houses than suggested could be built her. NOR07 Hydrogen pipeline passes through here. Where would the access be?  There is a row of houses, a gulley, a river, a railway line restricting access to the A556.  Eaton Lane is a narrow lane and joins Hartford Road.  The junction with Hartford Road is restricted and the road towards the A556 traffic lights is always a chicane of parked vehicles.  NOR08 The Hydrogen pipe line goes close to /through here. A new junction would have to be built with traffic lights onto the A556, this would cause more tail backs to traffic. This plot encroaches on the historic monastic site of Vale Royal.

Comment

Representation ID: 4447

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Alan Evans

I&O_4695
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: 4462

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Gill Evans

NOR01
I&O_4720
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: 4482

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Lamb

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_4748
I have to send my daughters to Little Leigh Primary School, as opposed to Davenham Primary School. The demand for Davenham Primary School is so big that adding more households to the area of Davenham is certainly going to exacerbate the problem. Having to drive my kids 20 minutes to school and back when they could be local to their house isn't something that I wish would be the reality for any other family.  Secondly, as Davenham is so close to a key part of the River Weaver, it is going to tremendously affect the biodiversity that is paramount to wildlife in the area, which will have a huge knock-on effect on the ecosystem of this area.  Thirdly, I believe that expanding on the infrastructure and blocking off key routes whilst the development takes place is going to prove detrimental to the risks of flooding, as this has already occurred in Davenham. It simply cannot support such a drastic change in housing numbers, pipelines for sewage. Etc.  This is why I would like to ask that you seek alternative plans to the proposals for the Davenham area. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4488

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Malcolm & Lynda Keat

NOR01
I&O_4756
NOR01 - Although currently designated as green belt, this area adjacent to Barnton has good transport links and the proximity of existing local facilities. This would make it another preferred area for development and deliver a mix of housing as per the local Plan requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 4496

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Pimlott-Smith

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_4769
I have seen the areas raised for proposed planning around Weaverham and are disappointed to see that NOR 10, NOR 11 and NOR 12 are all situated on the green belt land that surrounds our beautiful village. I'll speak most passionately about the proposed plans for NOR 10 as it is an area situated behind my house so I see it's use daily. Many, many people use the fields to access the footpaths down to the disused rail tracks, its a popular place for dog walkers, den builders, a place for children to forage blackberries and provides access to Thorn wood and Gorstage. The old playing field is still used by my own children regularly despite not having any playing equipment on it since before I moved to the village, sometimes they play football on it, or take their toy planes over to fly on it, just yesterday they dressed up as pirates and went over to play on the field as pirates with a Neighbour. I think it would be awful to loose more playing space, I actually think the old St Johns ambulance land would make a great spot for a pump track and give the village more places to play. Even the car park is advantage to the street as people from both sides of the road park their cars in it when the roadside spots fill up. I worry that access to build will mean more traffic making it even more difficult for them to play safely outside. I worry that we personally might loose access to the playing field, the carpark and the garage that we rent and that the village as a whole will loose some of its charm in having such wonderful green areas surrounding it taken away.

Comment

Representation ID: 4545

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Rachael Hornby

I&O_4828
I am writing to object to the proposed development on the farmland at the end of Eaton Lane, Davenham.  This land is not just open countryside – it is an important part of our village’s rural character. People walk their dogs here, children cycle safely, and families and individuals use the lane as a peaceful space to connect with nature and escape daily pressures. If houses are built, that character and tranquillity will be lost forever. The development is also completely disproportionate to the size of our village. Our community does not have the infrastructure to cope with such a sudden increase in housing. The following issues make this development unsuitable: Traffic and Safety The lane is narrow and rural, never intended for heavy traffic or construction vehicles. More cars will bring noise, congestion, and pollution, making it unsafe for walkers, cyclists, and children who currently use it. Pressure on Services Residents already face long waits for GP appointments, with schools at full capacity and increasing demand for SEN support. Adding more houses will overwhelm services that are already stretched to breaking point. Emergency Services The fire service is under pressure as it is. A large development will increase demand further and could put lives at risk. Public Transport Local transport links are extremely limited. New residents will have little choice but to rely on cars, which will only add to congestion and isolate those without access to private vehicles.  This proposal would damage our countryside, endanger our roads, and place unbearable strain on services in a way that is not sustainable for a village of this size. For these reasons, I urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reject this application and reconsider the proposed development. Our community deserves to retain its rural character, safe spaces, and vital services.

Comment

Representation ID: 4579

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Caroline Gallimore

NOR01
I&O_4862
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: 4594

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Pam Copsey

NOR07
I&O_4880
NOR07 is not ideal as Eaton Lane is already congested and access by fire engines, ambulances  large lorries and combine harvesters has been a problem. The junction with Hartford Road is not ideal. Access is required by Network Rail for maintenance and in case of emergency on the Hartford Straight. Some of the land highlighted creates a pond in heavy rain, although that could be addressed. Cadent have done exploratory work and at present Hartford Road and Eton Lane is their preferred access point for development of the hydrogen pipeline and drilling under the river, so dual development would make life for local residents difficult.  440 house means at least 880 cars. Any design should also allow for visitor parking which is often neglected in plans

Comment

Representation ID: 4736

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: victoria rigby

I&O_5061
Acton brideg could accommodate local residents housing options on a small scale as transport links work and local businesses with employee vacancies.

Comment

Representation ID: 4936

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Szostek

I&O_5295
You cannot adopt NOR10, without allowing for a relief road to the A49 along the track of the old mineral railway line.  At the moment residents in the Winnington development have only three choices to exit the area: over the one way bridge to Barnton, down the steep, narrow road past the informary to Northwich, through the conngested residential roads in Hartford

Comment

Representation ID: 5055

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5414
Seek to add areas west towards Sandiway and Cuddington.

Comment

Representation ID: 5314

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: The Bostock Estate

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5680
It is important to consider opportunities that promote integrated employment and residential growth to reduce commuting distances and support sustainable travel patterns. Allocating the land adjacent to NOR05 for housing would complement the employment uses and foster a balanced community. This approach reflects best practice in spatial planning by creating mixed-use, sustainable neighbourhoods that maximize infrastructure efficiencies and enhance local economic resilience. Importantly, such allocation supports the delivery of much-needed new homes to address Northwich’s housing demand, where recent Local Plan Monitoring Reports have highlighted a delivery gap relative to targets.

Comment

Representation ID: 5504

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jonathan WILLS

I&O_5876
I believe there remain a significant number of brownfield sites which should be prioritised for development.  I also believe that repurposing areas of Gadbrook Park (and other employment areas) for housing would be far preferable to relasing greenfield/belt land for development.  I work on Gadbrook and it is significantly underutilised - the site offers excellent potential for residential development given the access to travel networks and proximity to the town centre.  Given the low occupancy rates at Barons Quay, is it not feasible to repurpose these units for office/employment and also potentially residential use?

Comment

Representation ID: 5560

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5932
Within the potential growth areas, there is significant encroachment and growth in existing villages (Davenham, Hartford, Weaverham) which have seen large development within the previous 20 years. There are also significant challenges in accesibilty to public transport and other facilities which must be supported during any plan. Overall, the plans for Northwich do not support any of the Council's Local Plan objectives in regards to respecting boundaries and local feel of Cheshire villages, nor does it support the demands for these locations in regards to infrastructure. NOR07 and NOR08 would constitute an unreasonable coalescence of Davenham and Hartford, where NOR05 and NOR04 could be considered suitable locations for Rudheath's expansion based on existing provisions for schooling and shops. I believe there should be better focus to keep the specific village feels of Davenham, Moulton and Hartford. Furthermore, I would like to see the retention of the Settlement Gaps in Northwich between those villages, plus the settlement gap in Mere Heath towards Davenham and Moulton. Ultimately, Northwich is inequably targeted by housing increases and development in this plan and a wider, Borough-wide approach MUST be taken to give fairer development in other locations. Northwich should be a focus, but not a high target like it is in these plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 5618

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: DERWENT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Agent: ATP

I&O_5990
We feel that several settlements would merit their own place-based strategies to shape their opportunities to accommodate appropriate growth, and that should include the Wincham area. That would ensure that there is a clear framework to consider opportunities for growth to the north-east of Northwich. That would establish which proosals should be encouraged, particularly where there is proximity to public transport infrastructure and existing local services. To that extent, the identified location for residential uses at NOR2 has merit but it is evidently distinct from the existing settlement. We conclude that additional opportunities should be identified on the edge of Wincham and Higher Wincham (such as site ID 0743).

Comment

Representation ID: 5737

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6109
There is derelict land along Wallerscote Road opposite the lime beds.