Comment

Representation ID: 5881

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Gregory

Question SS 30
I&O_6266
An increase in the number of houses in Northwich will put additional pressure on already congested roads as well as the bridges at Winnington and in Northwich town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 5888

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Adam Webster

8 Northwich
I&O_6273
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: 6075

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tim O'Keeffe

I&O_6464
Yes. I strongly object to NOR01 being considered as a potential allocation for the following reasons: Green Belt harm: NOR01 is within the Green Belt. Development would undermine its purpose of preventing sprawl, safeguarding the countryside, and separating Northwich from surrounding villages. The site plays an important role in maintaining openness and providing a clear settlement boundary. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. Unsustainable location: The site is poorly served by public transport and is beyond realistic walking/cycling catchments for many day-to-day needs. It would result in car-dependent development, contrary to the Council’s climate emergency commitments and sustainable transport priorities. Infrastructure capacity: Local roads are already heavily congested, particularly through and into Northwich town centre. Schools, GP surgeries, and utilities are under pressure. Delivering large-scale development here would overstretch capacity, with no clear mitigation strategy. Landscape and character impact: NOR01 represents a significant incursion into open countryside, harming the setting of Northwich and undermining rural character. Reasonable alternatives exist: The Council’s evidence indicates significant brownfield and previously developed land capacity elsewhere. These should be prioritised before releasing sensitive Green Belt land like NOR01.

Comment

Representation ID: 6237

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue White

SS30
I&O_6635
  - 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: 6308

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Birchenough

SS30
I&O_6715
#NAME?

Comment

Representation ID: 6351

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stuart Lea-Swain

I&O_6758
For every house built an extra 2 more cars will be put on the roads within that area. The natural geography of the river crossings available for the Weaver are Northwich town, Winnington and Acton Bridge A49. All these locations are currently unable to manage rush hour traffic, making the proposed developments unworkable.

Comment

Representation ID: 6450

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Gorsuch

I&O_6864
If NOR01, 10, 11 and 12 were developed, this would require new bridge at Winnington (this should have been built long ago) and Hartford bypass. Any new development around Hartford would lead to further worsening of traffic situation in the village. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6531

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_6948
NOR01 - The 1600 homes North of Barnton, muted in the consultation, has already filled our MP’s inbox. There is simply not the local infrastructure to support this including prolonged issues with flooding, highway conditions. Outsides agriculture, the greenbelt are established areas enjoyed by the residents of Barton, Anderton & Comberbach. A point to notes, this area is reported to have a Codicil  in place, preventing the lands sale/development for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Parr

I&O_7152
- 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: 6774

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Lea-Swain

I&O_7201
There is limited access around the local area in the borough due to the fact that you have to cross the River Weaver. If the number of houses suggested are built within Weaverham, and/or Barnton this will lead to further congestion and gridlock at these points. This was raised before the Winnington development and whilst traffic has now increased there is no development on the second bridge ‘promised’ during planning stages. The two main bridges for access/exit are old, with one being single access and weight restricted, therefore no further development should be initiated in Winnington/Barnton until a new toll-free river crossing is provided. This should be made available before any further development, not offered as a ‘sweetener’! Extra houses in Kingsley will also result in further traffic on the B5153 through outlying villages such as Crowton/Acton Bridge/Weaverham. This will increase further the daily congestion in these areas. The roads/traffic control are not appropriate for these ‘town’ levels of traffic. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7143

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Coles

Map 5.6
I&O_7615
Development of Northwich should focus on the regeneration of exisiting brown field land around the town centre / Baron's Quay to provide mixed-use housing. Sites around Winnington, released by TATA, should also be strongly considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 7180

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: David Lees

I&O_7655
I don't think  nor12 or nor10 should  be considered  because  of the  effect  it would  have  on the village and  traffic  problems 

Comment

Representation ID: 7216

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nik Darwin

I&O_7696
NOR 01 this area is separated from Northwich by a bridge and without enhancements it is unlikely that people in this area would easliy be able to access services and facilities in Northwich.   Object to NOR 6 and 7 NOR 6 and 7 are the most peripheral to rail services. Such sites should only be considered if more sustainably located sites are unavailable. There is also substantial speculative development pressure in Davenham and there needs to be a clear understanding of what the capacity of the village is so that if permissions come forward in advance of the plan any further proposals for the village are scaled back in line with available capacity. Having several sites with permission in the village at the same time is unlikely to yield substantial delivery as developers will be keen to keep supply limited to enhance sales and price. NOR 06 The growth area includes areas of land which have not been put forward as available for development in the land availability study and there will not be deliverable. Any allocation considered at this location should be restricted to land that is available for development. NOR06 can in effect be divided into 2 halves on the basis of the land available -the northern half of the site is in close proximity to a Grade 2* listed building in a conservation area and there is the potential that any access would be close to the listed building and into the centre of the village. The centre of the village has unrestricted parking which assists the local shops but in effect traffic calms the village making it often single lane traffic through the village. Substantial develpment on the top part of the site would be more likely to travel through the village to reach the A556 requiring changes to the village centre to increase capacity which would impact both local businesses, but also the character of the village centre much of which is in a conservation area. A large development up into the centre of the village would put further pressure on the local school. If development at this location is seen as necessary an elderly persons village should be considered at lower density and with less impact in terms of numbers of cars and requirement for school places. There is a well-used footpath through the edge of this site at the Grove and also through the site which should be protected and any development which is in the conservation area would need to enhance and should not be detrimental to the setting of the listed building. The southern part of the site could be accessed more directly from the Peck Mill roundabout potentially generating less trips through the village. However, this site is not close to sustainable transport links. Development at this location is likely to have significant transport impacts and require substantial infrastructure investment. This site if considered should be phased to a later part of the plan period as previous development in the village indicates there are long lead-in and build out times . Phasing should ensure that any infrastructure is provided during the development at specific trigger points and if it were to be allocated there should be a clear list of requirements which should be rigorously enforced. Object to NOR08 This site is not located close to a settlement being across the river from Davenham and across the A556 from Hartford. It is also an area which includes ancient woodland and high quality landscape along the Vale Royal Abbey Drive. It is unclear how the site could be accessed given its location.  Object to NOR 07 seems to be somewhat peripehral to Davenham village and it is not clear how the site would be accessed.  There is also an issue that there is a large amount of land between the village and river and it is not clear how the new proposal would form a clear boudary without the risk of further spread of development in this area. The road is used to access cycle and footpath routes and is currently a quiet lane if it was to be developed there should be dedicated cycle and walking routes to Moulton and Davenham and A556 to link to Northwich and Hartford. All sites proposed for development should provide a significant contribution to a wide range of housing needs including affordable housing and accessible housing for older people and those with disabilities.  All sites shoud ensure that existing screening is retained and additional screening provided to protact the privacy of existing residents given the samll sizes of gardens now provided in new homes.  Masterplanning of larger sites should be the norm to ensure a high standard of new development.   

Comment

Representation ID: 7578

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Pinpoint Group

I&O_8065
Improvement of efficient train links to Chester, Manchester and Liverpool. Key for uptake is the proximity of car parking for commuters. Hartford Station car park (Liverpool/ Crewe/ London) is under capacity as are Northwich and Greenbank (Manchester/ Chester). If the plan is to encourage more use of public transport new developments should be proposed in areas where train stations exist and can be accessed without driving. In any local plan a pedestrian and safe cycling infrastructure would be welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 7669

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Woodburn

I&O_8156
I wish to add two additional points to my previous submission: regarding the Eaton Lane proposal within Davenham – any developments of that lane will require removal of significant hedgerow. This will have a significant impact on local wildlife and removing the hedgerow should not happen. on a more general point, I have seen multiple objections in many of the local districts within Cheshire West. Inevitably nobody will volunteer or be pleased about further development, especially in communities that are already under strain. As a different proposal you should consider a new, Greenfield site, where a village can be built from scratch, with the right infrastructure, utilities etc. I am sure there are many farmers that will happily trade their land to help with your problem. I propose that is a far better solution than a lot of of the proposals you have suggested in the local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 7754

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Wendy Mahon

Map 5.6
I&O_8241
I would like to express my opinion about the proposed new housing on GREEN BELT land around Weaverham. NOR10, 11 & 12. I SAY NO TO MORE HOUSING ON GREEN BELT LAND!

Support

Representation ID: 7767

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine O'Grady

I&O_8255
Leave the green belt land, focus on areas that do not impact local farming, wildlife, trees and prone to flooding areas, focus instead on areas that can be reused, there are several empty business buildings on the Gadbroke business site for example - repurpose that.

Support

Representation ID: 7768

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine O'Grady

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_8256
Areas NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12 - Weaverham is already a large village, whilst it has 3 primary schools it only has 1 high school which feeds all surrounding villages as well, it has lack of local amenities to expand - 1 drs surgery with hard parking. Encroaching near thorn woods will disrupt wildlife as well as impacting on the woods themselves - land that is owned by the residents of the village. NOR10 has also been refused access roads several times. This will impact residents on walnut, briar lane and green park as well as countless others. The land is also worked as farm land and should be preserved to support the farming community and their family. The field is also prone to flooding - despite drainage. It all the natural flood support is removed (eg the trees) then where does that leave the existing residents? Consideration with all this building should be existing infrastructure, amenities, jobs, schools. All the houses built in winnington were promised a school and drs surgery - but this failed to materialise. There was also promise of a new bridge to ease traffic, yet residents are still stuck with one bridge and endless delays due to the volumes of all the extra cars of which was raised by residents repeatedly.

Comment

Representation ID: 7776

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Reverend Rob Iveson

I&O_8264
If I may, a couple of brief comments in the context of the Cheshire West and Chesire Proped Local Plan  Consultations.  I am Rector of St Wilfrid's Parsh Church in Davenham,  so I appreciate  the areas within the Parish-  which is Davenham, Leftwich, Kingsmead and Gadbrook.  I appreciate there needs to be more houses built and I encourage this. Two comments I would like  to offer: One- the need for infrastucture to be able to absorb any increased traffic and footfall that comes with lots more housing - and the need for roads,  schools, social  centres, pubs,  shops, etc.    It is about give and take - and any growth demands some cost  but I commend a very realistic  look at what is reasonably  absorbable in  a given intended location (this i think is pertinent  to Davenham's capacity to perhaps not absorb much more- not I  think for houses per se but the increased traffic with  real pinch points in the village)   Two-  new towns- as per Milton Keyes. More consideration given please to the possibility of creating  new towns rather that just inserting more into given areas. I understand that is nationally the intention is to build some but could that be really  increased- so with  it comes bespoke infrastructure - and facilities. Every existing  town  had to start its present life sometime. Perhaps  there is a case for more new towns that can perhaps build in the solutions and avoid the problems  Every blessing to you as you engage with  navigating through this.

Support

Representation ID: 7791

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Dignum

NOR01
I&O_8279
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: 7839

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Armstrong

I&O_8328
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: 7875

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8364
The options for Northwich all have something wrong with them; for instance: NOR1 at Barnton/Anderton feels as though it would need a strategic link road to service it NOR2 at Wincham suffers from poor accessibility and would lead to a remote and detached location without community infrastructure support NOR10, 11 and 12 at Weaverham may offer the best fit but this is less an expansion of Northwich and more about the re-definition of Weaverham without supporting infrastructure NOR6 will change the character of Davenham, whilst not benefitting from great access NOR7, 8 and 9 may offer the best option for Northwich (aka Hartford)

Comment

Representation ID: 7909

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Deborah Dignum

SS 30
I&O_8398
- 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

Support

Representation ID: 7991

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Leslie Bradley

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_8480
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. Also working farmland has been earmarked for development we have an abundance of wild life on this land namely Hares, Foxes, Buzzards and Hawks to name a few, this is a rediculous proposal when there is unused commercial areas which would be ideal for development. 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: 8060

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Beech

I&O_8549
I am writing to express my strongest possible objection to the proposed growth areas, specifically NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12 , in Weaverham. My objections are based on the following critical issues: Green Belt and Agricultural Land:  These proposals involve building on designated Green Belt land and valuable, viable agricultural land. This is an inappropriate use of the land, and no "very special circumstances" have been presented to justify this permanent harm, other than the government's assertion that we need greater development to cater for our expanding population without considering alternatives, such as population control. It directly contradicts the principles of sustainable development and the protection of rural landscapes. Loss of Village Identity:  Approving these developments would lead to the irreversible loss of the distinct character of Weaverham. The cumulative effect of these proposals, along with others in the local area, would be to merge our separate villages into one large, undifferentiated urban sprawl, destroying the sense of community that is highly valued by residents. Inadequate Infrastructure:  Weaverham lacks the essential infrastructure to support any significant growth. Services such as schools, local health provision, and drainage systems are already at or beyond capacity. These proposals make no credible provision for the immense strain that hundreds of new dwellings would place on our limited public services. Poor Transport Links:  The existing road network, particularly Northwich Road, is heavily congested at peak times and serves as a vital local artery. The addition of hundreds of new cars would make this congestion unbearable and create severe highway safety issues. Furthermore, public transport links in the area are poor and unreliable, which would force new residents to be entirely car-dependent. For these reasons, I urge the council to reject the inclusion of these sites as potential growth areas in the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 8085

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8574
The options for Northwich all have something wrong with them; for instance: NOR1 at Barnton/Anderton feels as though it would need a strategic link road to service it NOR2 at Wincham suffers from poor accessibility and would lead to a remote and detached location without community infrastructure support NOR10, 11 and 12 at Weaverham may offer the best fit but this is less an expansion of Northwich and more about the re-definition of Weaverham without supporting infrastructure NOR6 will change the character of Davenham, whilst not benefitting from great access NOR7, 8 and 9 may offer the best option for Northwich (aka Hartford)

Comment

Representation ID: 8110

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Powell

SS 30
I&O_8599
#NAME?

Comment

Representation ID: 8122

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Powell

I&O_8611
I believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas, as well as unused land along the river side opposite Barons Quay offer a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered 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: 8177

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Nick & Margy Hodges

SS30
I&O_8666
The council may wish to consider:     NOR01 - Although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North east of Barnton might 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                   (note:  the A533 also links to the A49 towards the M56/M6 etc.)   Lastly:   A general observation (i.e. I’m not sure which question this would answer).  Looking at the 4 Key Diagram; CWAC has substantial key settlements North West & North East.  Strategically it might be worth considering ‘seeding’ a more substantial settlement to the south around the region of the junction between the A534 and A41 for example.  Although most areas are outside CWAC remit: Chester is to the North, Wrexham is to the West, Nantwich to the East and Whitchurch to the South etc. it might be worth further investigation taking proximity of these major areas into consideration.    

Comment

Representation ID: 8194

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Mackenzie

SS30
I&O_8683
NOR01 – While currently designated as green belt, the area to the northeast of Barnton could be considered for sensitive development. Its location near the A559 and close to village facilities makes it a convenient spot for local families. Development here could be done with minimal impact on the surrounding landscape and offers the chance to provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of the community, in line with the Local Plan. For these reasons, I urge the Council to remove or significantly reduce large-scale housing allocations in Davenham from the final Local Plan. Future housing growth must be directed to the right places — where infrastructure already exists, where the environment can be protected, and where community character will not be sacrificed. The alternative sites I have outlined meet these criteria and are far more likely to gain public support. It is easy to see why NOR06, NOR07, NOR08 have been identified as areas for housing, they are easy wins for private developers, easy builds, profitable. However, as a society and an elected council we have an obligation to ensure that developer pressure and lobbying does not erode what democracy values, and that which is protected in day-to-day policy and law. More work and due diligence must be done to identify suitable areas, and more focus placed on regenerating areas in central Northwich. Developers must work much harder to find their quick profits. Let’s not allow quick private profit over village community, policy, ecology and common sense. That, would certainly undermine public trust in CWAC and government, which you will agree is sacrosanct.