Comment

Representation ID: 8257

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Christopher and Marie Lawton

NOR01
I&O_8746
NOR01-  Expansion to the north east of Barnton would be a useful consideration, especially with its proximity to the A559, and access to the existing village facilities. It would also provide a mix of housing as per the Local Plan requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 8261

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8750
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: 8359

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: William Coverdale

SS30
I&O_8850
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich - NOR01 - Although currently identified as a green belt site 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: 8367

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Coverdale

SS30
I&O_8858
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich   - NOR01 - Although currently identified as a green belt site 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: 8370

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Coverdale

SS30
I&O_8861
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich   - NOR01 - Although currently identified as a green belt site 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: 8382

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Francesca Goudousaki

SS30
I&O_8873
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich NOR01 – While currently designated as green belt, the area to the northeast of Barnton could be considered for sensitive development. Its location near the A559 and close to village facilities makes it a convenient spot for local families. Development here could be done with minimal impact on the surrounding landscape and offers the chance to provide a mix of housing that meets the needs of the community, in line with the Local Plan. For these reasons, I urge the Council to remove large-scale housing allocations in Davenham from the final Local Plan. Future housing growth must be directed to the right places — where infrastructure already exists, where the environment can be protected, and where community character will not be sacrificed. The alternative sites I have outlined meet these criteria and are far more likely to gain public support. It is unfathomable that NOR06, NOR07, NOR08 have been identified as areas for housing - I surmise that they are deemed easy wins by private developers who may not have considered the lived reality of the people who call this beautiful village area home and how these plans would irreversibly change it in a profoundly negative way. We collectively have an obligation to ensure that developer pressure and lobbying does not erode what democracy values, and that which is protected in day-to-day policy and law. More work and due diligence must be done to identify suitable areas, and more focus placed on regenerating areas in central Northwich.  We must protect village community, policy, safety and ecology. If we remove/destroy the ecologically important green spaces and disturb the quiet, safe and simple nature of our cherished village, then what is left for the people who live here? We look to CWAC to uphold its key principles and commitment to its strong ethical values.  Many thanks for your consideration and time in this matter.

Comment

Representation ID: 8408

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Davenham & Bostock Parish Council

I&O_8899
Davenham & Bostock Parish Council formally objects to the proposed development sites identified within the above draft Local Plan, specifically those concerning land within the Parish of Davenham. NOR06 & NOR07 We recognise the need for sustainable development across the region; however, the proposed allocations in Davenham are unsuitable for the following reasons: 1. Infrastructure Strain 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 increase current safety concerns for walkers and cyclists. Public transport provision is minimal, and additional residents would place unsustainable pressure on limited local bus services. Local primary schools are at full capacity, and there is insufficient space or funding provision for necessary expansion. GP surgeries and health services in the area are similarly oversubscribed, with current residents already experiencing delays and difficulty accessing care. Emergency Services including fire & ambulance are already stretched and again working at capacity 2. Impact on Village Character and Heritage 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 risks encroachment on heritage assets and open spaces valued by the community. The scale of the two proposed developments are entirely disproportionate to the village’s size and setting. Furthermore, the proposed developments would negatively affect the well-being of local residents, particularly in terms of their access to green spaces. Davenham is home to many walking and cycling routes that contribute to the physical and mental well-being of residents. The loss of these green spaces, as well as increased congestion and urbanisation, would diminish the peaceful rural environment and compromise opportunities for outdoor recreation, which are vital for mental health and quality of life. 3. Environmental and Flood Risk Concerns The proposed sites would also bring unacceptable amounts of light & noise pollution to the village 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. Both sites are currently farmed and the land is classified as prime farmland A conservation area cuts NOR06 in half! One area along Eaton Lane has been identified by Cadent as a proposed route for a future Hydrogen pipeline. This introduces a significant future infrastructure constraint and raises potential safety and planning concerns. The presence of such a pipeline would almost certainly reduce the developable area and adds a further layer of risk that has not been adequately accounted for in the site assessment process Eaton Lane -the actual farm land is considered to be in the top 10 in the UK re it’s condition for growing crops. It is currently used to grow crops such as Maze & Cheshire new potatoes NORO6 NOR07 are home home to numerous butterflies, bees, foxes, wood pigeons, buzzards and Bats, (we believe there could be a Roost in the trees near to the railway line) There is also Owls are nesting in Eaton Lane there and there are multiple Badger sets (which are now protected by the current Government) Cheshire Wildlife Trust are also in the process of identifying more wildlife corridors and Vale Royal Locks and the surrounding fields are in scope for this!  4. Availability of More Suitable Sites Elsewhere The Council is aware of brownfield sites and locations with greater connectivity and infrastructure capacity elsewhere in the borough that would be more appropriate for higher-density development. These alternatives should be prioritised in accordance with national planning policy. 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 We believe that these sites, sustainably developed will allow Cheshire West & Chester to meet the required housing target of 5,000 additional homes. These areas are far better suited to accommodating additional housing without compromising the character, infrastructure, or environmental balance of rural parishes like Davenham.

Comment

Representation ID: 8418

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Wain Estates (Land) Limited

Map 5.6
I&O_8909
A high-level review of the Northwich growth options identified on Map 5.6 has been carried out the provide a comparison between them and Wain Estates’ land interests. NOR01  This parcel is located within the Green Belt and is located adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel was included within CWaC’s Land Availability Assessment site ref. 2177 however given its Green Belt location, the parcel is not considered to be ‘suitable’. This parcel has a Grade 2 Agricultural Land Classification [ALC] and comprises land that is subject to pockets of surface water.  The constraints identified are not considered significant to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that its sites are sequentially preferable, because they are not designated as Green Belt, and do not comprise any Grade 2 ALC NOR02 This parcel is located within the Green Belt and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel does not appear to have been included within CWaC’s Land Availability Assessment. This parcel has Grade 2 and 3 ALC, is subject to surface water across the entirety of the parcel and falls within a minerals supply and safeguarding area for salt. The constraints identified are not considered significant to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that its sites are sequentially preferable, because they are not designated as Green Belt NOR06 This parcel is located within the Countryside and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel has been considered ‘suitable’ for residential development within CWaC’s Land Availability Assessment site refs. 1839, 1940, 1653 and 0887. This parcel has a Grade 3 ALC classification, comprises limited pockets of land subject to surface water flood risk and falls within a mineral supply and safeguarding area for salt. Wain Estates consider this parcel to be a preferred growth location given that it does not hold a Green Belt designation and has more limited constraints. However, this parcel should be extended further south to include the Land at Peckmill Farm given this land parcel is not constrained, forms a natural extension to the existing settlement boundary, does not fall within the Green Belt and is deliverable. NOR06 also currently consists of Davenham Conservation Area, which includes several listed buildings such as Davenham Hall, a Grade II* listed building, a Local Green Space designation in the ‘made’ Davenham and Whatcroft Neighbourhood Plan. The land at Peckmill Farm, to the south of NOR06, does not include any national or local designations and is less constrained.  NOR07  This parcel is located within the Countryside and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel comprises an area of ancient woodland which would be retained as part of future development proposals. This parcel comprises predominantly Grade 3 ALC, with a small area of Grade 2, comprises limited pockets of land subject to surface water flood risk and falls within a minerals supply and safeguarding area for sand and gravel. Wain Estates consider this parcel to be a preferred growth location given that it does not hold a Green Belt designation. The constraints identified are not considered to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that this site is not sequentially preferable to NOR08 and Wain’s site at Peckmill Farm, Davenham because it contains an area of land covered by dense trees which could limit the sites developable area and contains a number of titles which could potentially restrict developability due to ownership constraints. NOR08  This parcel is located within the Countryside and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel comprises Grade 3 ALC, limited pockets of land subject to surface water flood risk and falls within a minerals supply and safeguarding area for sand and gravel. Wain Estates consider this parcel to be a preferred growth location given that it does not hold a Green Belt designation and has limited constraints and is considered to be suitable to accommodate growth NOR09 This parcel is located within the Green Belt and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel is considered as within CWaC’s Land Availability Assessment site refs. 0660 and 1836, albeit given its Green Belt location, is not identified as ‘suitable’ for development. This parcel comprises Grade 3 ALC and comprises significant pockets of land subject to surface water flood risk. The constraints identified are not considered significant to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that its sites are sequentially preferable, Pg 8/12 34129411v1 because they are not designated as Green Belt.   NOR10 This parcel is located within the Green Belt and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel comprises predominantly Grade 3 ALC, with a small area of Grade 2. This parcel comprises limited pockets of land subject to surface water flood risk and falls within a minerals supply and safeguarding area for sand and gravel. The constraints identified are not considered significant to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that its sites are sequentially preferable, because they are not designated as Green Belt. NOR11  This parcel is located within the Green Belt and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. This parcel was included within CWaC’s Land Availability Assessment albeit given its Green Belt location, is not identified as ‘suitable’. This parcel comprises Grade 3 ALC and comprises limited pockets of land subject to surface water flood risk, falls within a minerals supply and safeguarding area for sand and gravel and comprises a small area of land falls within Flood Zone 2 and 3. The constraints identified are not considered significant to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that its sites are sequentially preferable, because they are not designated as Green Belt NOR12 This parcel is located within the Green Belt and is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Northwich. A small area of the eastern part of this parcel was included within CWaC’s Land Availability Assessment site ref. 1691 albeit given its Green Belt location, it is not identified as ‘suitable’. This parcel comprises Grade 2 and 3 Agricultural Land and comprises pockets of land subject to surface water flooding albeit these are not substantial. The constraints identified are not considered significant to restrict development and this parcel could be suitable to accommodate growth. However, Wain Estates consider that its sites are sequentially preferable, because they are not designated as Green Belt. The table above illustrates that Wain Estates’ land interests are situated in the most favourable growth locations within the wider Northwich settlement area. Importantly, neither site lies within the Green Belt nor is subject to greater constraints than other areas identified for growth around Northwich. Coupled with that, the sites will have imminent applications and as such, if approved, could deliver homes in the first 5 years.

Comment

Representation ID: 8420

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Annet

I&O_8911
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: 8480

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8971
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: 8517

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Jay Hale

I&O_9008
-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 offers a prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan target for sustainable mixed-use housing development and should be seriously considered. I am also aware that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 8596

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Jill Murphy

SS30
I&O_9087
- 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: 8599

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Murphy

SS30
I&O_9090
- 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: 8600

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Murphy

SS31
I&O_9091
- NOR06 and 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: 8602

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Craig Griffiths

NOR01
I&O_9093
NOR01 – North East of Barnton: While currently within the Green Belt, the site’s closeness to the A559 and local amenities means a carefully managed, small-scale development could be feasible without significant environmental impact.

Comment

Representation ID: 8648

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wood

SS 30
I&O_9139
Firstly, I recognise that CWaC has a legal duty to prepare a Local Plan (LP) and ,as part of this, develop a housing strategy which meets the targets placed on the authority by central government I further recognise that developing a new LP is extremely complicated process, will require numerous contacts and discussions with a large range of partner organisations, other statutory bodies and it will be almost impossible to one that will satisfy everyone.  As a resident of Northwich, understandably my responses are mostly focussed on the impact on the town itself and its neighbouring villages. However, I have tried to provide comments on the impacts of each Option in other areas where I think this would be beneficial. A          I acknowledge that CWaC have stated that their existing stance is that development should not take place in the Green Belt (GNB) unless it can be absolutely demonstrated that no other alternative is possible / feasible (i.e. provision of social housing in rural locations)   B          However, I am also aware of the changes to the NPPF in 2024 which has weakened GNB protection through the requirement to meet local housing need as well as the introduction of the concept of ‘Grey Belt’(GBY) and the relaxation of what constitutes “inappropriate development”. I therefore acknowledge that the Council may find it problematical to both protect the existing GNB areas given the charges in National Planning Policy and housing targets. C          Regarding the Council’s proposal to adopt the Sustainability Appraisal’s objectives as a basis for developing the LP,  recognise that this option does have several advantages over other Options, particularly that any new long-term plan needs to reflect the numerous changes that have occurred since the current plan was agreed and published as well as reflecting the additional changes and needs that will need to be taken into consideration over the next 10-15 years (i.e. adaptation to the impact of Climate Change). D          Nonetheless, as a starting point I firmly believe that the protection of the existing Green  Belt to the North of the Borough should, as far possible, be maintained. But equally, I would contest that other rural areas to the south of the County - such as those around Tarporley, Farndon, Tattenhall, Malpas etc also need to be protected from excessive or inappropriate development as these towns, villages and the countryside around them contribute equally to the rural nature and landscape of Cheshire as a whole (i.e. the areas covered by both Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East Borough) as does the GNB area to the North E          I would therefore be interested to know if the Council are developing any plans / policies that would provide these areas with similar status / protection from inappropriate development to the GNB area to the North of the Borough. F          Likewise, is it the intention of the Council to develop any plans and policies in relation to what it might define as GBY land and, as part of the Land Use Plan, to identify any areas / specific locations which may be designated as such? G          But like many residents, I have Significant concerns as to how our existing infrastructure will cope an support all the proposed growth set out in the draft plan. H          For instance, the only direct road link from Northwich to Runcorn / Widnes  and the  wider Merseyside conurbation is the A533 which passes over the existing heavily overloaded single lane, aged swing bridge at Winnington. Not, only is the condition of this structure unclear, its condition of which is only going to continue to deteriorate. A major short or long term failure would effectively  result in the links between these in these two communities being severed with massive  consequential impacts on local communities schools, businesses, in terms of traffic disruption / rat running,  etc –  as was the case when the embankment at Soot Hill in Anderton unexpectedly failed in 2018. The Structure is owned / managed maintained by the Canal and Rivers Trust (CRT) and not CWaC in its role as Highway Authority. The C&RT are effectively a Charity and funding a new structure  (which in 2018 was estimated to cost £18M) in may not be a high priority in their future capital plan and the same could be said for any ongoing funding that may be needed to keep the bridge safe and functional. I recognise that that CWaC is working with CRT and other parties to secure the funding that will enable both parties to construct a replacement structure that will be capable of maintaining both the existing highway and navigation rights. but this has been ongoing for decades now and a solution has yet be delivered. the further, planned major developments either side of this vital piece of local infrastructure I           Furthermore, the TATA (or Winnington Urban village site) immediately to the South East of the bridge already has outline planning consent for the construction of 1200 more dwellings. Additionally, the current draft plan also proposes the provision of a significant residential development site on the GBN to the North of Barnton. Once both these sites are once fully developed (which I acknowledge may take several decades) this will clearly place an even greater burden on the swing bridge in terms of numbers of traffic movements (which are already forecast to grow by up to  8% by 2030. J           Hence, my considered view  - which I believe is one that is shared by many residents – is that any further, major developments on either side of the swing bridge should be deferred until a replacement structure is provided as not only would continuing to rely on the operation of the current structure without a new bridge be unsustainable, as I stated in Point H above, any short or long-term failure would create intolerable disruptions, and delays to all forms of traffic, would effectively sever the town from Barnton, Runcorn, Widnes and the Merseyside City-Region, have a hugely detrimental impact on local businesses as well as creating potentially life threatening situations as a result of emergency vehicles being unable to gain access along the A533 corridor. K          Given the foregoing, my view is that the provision of a new bridge in this location should be the Borough Council’s First priority in its future Highways Capital Spending Plan. To this end, I would suggest that the developers of these sites and other major housing s 106 should be required to make significant contribution to the cost of a replacement bridge, either through Section 106 Agreements or the Community Infrastructure Levy. L          On an associated point, I would like to know if the Council has any unallocated or unspent s106 / CIL funds that it may be able to use to contribute the provision of a new bridge? M         Another major concern of local residents is that many the developers of many new sites have not been required to provide the infrastructure that is needed to support these new communities (i.e. schools, shops, medical centres, social / community facilities etc). The development of the Kingsmead site at Leftwich in the late 1990’s is a model that I any many others think is one that ought to have been the blueprint for many others as not only it is it pleasing from an architectural and layout perspective it also included all those facilities that aspects that helps to create and support a vibrant local community. N          I note that Section ID1 of the Issues and Options Document covers Infrastructure and developer contributions. I largely agree with all the proposals set out in this document , particularly that the New LP Policy approach that where infrastructure is needed to sustain a new development – such as EV charging points, superfast Broadband, - Schoolos Transport Provision - that off-site contributions may not be acceptable and that the Council will not fund any shortfall in provision. O         My support for The Northwich Development Framework remains unchanged. P          In relation to Option C - which is to “Focus on sustainable transport corridors and build houses where there are good existing transport links”,  I have a significant concern in that my view is that very basis of this option is built on what I think is the erroneous view that the existing transport links that are shown are considered as being ‘good’. By way of explanation I have provided several examples. i) The issues related to Winnington swing Bridge outlined in the preceding Paragraphs H-K inclusive. ii) The existing train service along the Mid-Cheshire Line (MCL) that links Manchester -Altrincham – Northwich – Chester) is actually anything but good as, apart from during the peak am and pm (when there are 3 services in 1 hour), the current frequency is 1 train per hour in each direction. This is not the level of service I would expect a town of the size of Northwich to have, particularly given the increase in demand that will arise from the additional planned extra housing iii) Furthermore, the journey time into Manchester City Centre  - whether this be by changing onto the Metro System at Altrincham or remaining on the train (which then routes via Stockport) is in excess of 1 hour. The service is unreliable and parking and public and other transport options at most of the stations are limited  or non-existent (for instance, there are no secure cycle storage facilities at Northwich Station for those who may wish to start or end their journey by bicycle – which is hardly a joined up or sustainable approach to which is being promoted through latest iteration of the Council’s draft Local Transport Plan (LTP). iv) I am aware that there is a limited capacity at the junction of the MCL and the Manchester-London main Line at Stockport and this is one of the main stumbling blocks in increasing the causing bottle neck and restricting increase Chester – Manchester via Northwich to two per hour. My understanding is that this situation is unlikely to be resolved for some years and it is therefore likely that the residents of Cheshire will have to put up with this poor level of service for many year v) Additionally, the only station on the entire MCL that does not have platform level access is the Chester-bound side at Northwich. At present, the elderly, less able, those with disabilities, parents with pushchairs etc have no alternative but to cross from one platform to the via a poorly maintained and badly illuminated footbridge. This is in stark contrast to the stations at Chester and Altrincham, both of which have lifts which enable such users to change platforms easily. vi) Given the points I have made in sub-paragraphs (ii) – v) inclusive, I would be interested to know what steps the Council has taken or is planning to take with key partners such as Northern Rail, Network Rail, GMPTE to both improve services on this line in terms of both frequencies, standards and infrastructure. vii) The services from Hartford Station are in that similarly to those at Northwich, apart from during the peak am and pm periods (when there are 3 services in 1 hour), the current frequency is 1 train per hour in each direction. No West Coast Main Line (WCML) trains currently stop at the station. Therefore, if anyone wishes to travel North to Warrington, Wigan,  Preston and beyond they face the farcical situation of having first to travel south to Crewe and then board a Northbound train which then passes through Hartford before heading onward to Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster et al. The only other alternatives to this are for them to travel into Liverpool Lime Street and catch a North-bound WCML train or do the same but via Manchester Stockport or Piccadilly. Both of these ‘options’ are cost-prohibitive to most people, but also increase journey time significantly. viii)  Hence, similarly to the points I raised in Paragraph (vi), I would be interested to know what steps the Council has taken or is planning to take with key partners such as London Midland Railways, Avanti and Network Rail to improve the level of services on this line in terms of both frequencies and direct destination.  ix) In relation to bus services, the situation is even more dire. The journey time between Northwich and Chester is in excess of 1 hour. After the peak period the frequency is hourly and the last bus to Chester is at 1740 hours with the reciprocal service being at 1755 x)The  Northwich to Crewe via Leighton Hospital) is likewise an Hourly service ( although there are two 2No between 0620 – 0735). However, the Journey time is 1 hour 10 mins and the last service is shortly after 1800 in both directions.) xi) The Service between Northwich and Warrington – which is another major employment site -is similar with 2 buses during peak hours peak but journey times being in excess of 1 hour and the last buses leaving at around 1800 Hours. Given these facts, I’m not surprised that private vehicle and cars and vans represent the most popular travel to work method at around 38%, that between 2009-2019 car vehicle miles have increased by 11% but during the same period bus patronage has fell by around 20%. P          The Council’s own housing land monitoring data figures indicates that throughout the Borough there are is currently undeveloped planning permissions for almost 5-6,000 homes.  This represents about one-fifth the Borough’s revised housing target of 28710 Q         Whilst I acknowledge that this figure is likely to reduce once a detailed assessment of the constraints, development potential and availability and achievability is carried out, It is my unequivocal view that the major housing developers whom hold such consents should be required by the Council to complete these developments before seeking to construct any further housing in the the same locality, particularly if any planned new development is in the GBN      R          Gadbrook Park I support the Council’s proposals in relation Gadbrook Park, particularly the re-introduction of passenger services on the Northwich- Middlewich-Sandbach- Crewe Line and  the Safeguarding of a site for a new station at Gadbrook Park. However, as part of any proposed re-opening of this line, the issue regarding the lack of platform level access at Northwich Station will need to be addressed. In relation to this aim, might I ask what studies have been done to evidence that the provision of the station at this location and re-opening of line all the way to Crewe is feasible and financially viable? Does the project have the support of NR and, if so, have they identified and budget in their longer term CP to support its delivery? S          I fully support the proposals set out in Section 19.2 of the Issues and Options relating to affordable and particularly social housing  

Comment

Representation ID: 8655

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes (North West) Ltd and Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9146
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: 8718

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Daniel Beckingham

NOR01
I&O_9211
Question SS 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich NOR01 – North East of Barnton : While currently designated as Green Belt, this area warrants consideration for future development due to its close proximity to key transport routes, notably the A559, and its access to established village amenities. The site offers the potential for minimal disruption to the surrounding landscape and presents a valuable opportunity to deliver a balanced mix of housing in line with Local Plan objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 8721

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Cathrine Ruston

NOR01
I&O_9214
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: 8733

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Ivan Beckingham

NOR01
I&O_9226
Question SS 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich NOR01 – North East of Barnton : While currently designated as Green Belt, this area warrants consideration for future development due to its close proximity to key transport routes, notably the A559, and its access to established village amenities. The site offers the potential for minimal disruption to the surrounding landscape and presents a valuable opportunity to deliver a balanced mix of housing in line with Local Plan objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 8774

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Gandy

SS30
I&O_9267
Question SS30: Northwich Growth Areas There are too many.

Comment

Representation ID: 8830

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9323
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: 8836

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Beverley Crerar

SS30
I&O_9329
Question 30 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: 8879

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Maciej Labiak

NOR01
I&O_9372
Question SS30 Regarding the potential growth areas around Northwich, I am most concerned about location NOR01. This area plays an important role in preserving the countryside and the separation between existing communities. Local services such as schools, GP surgeries, and transport links are already under significant strain and would struggle to cope with additional large-scale housing. The nearest train stations and road networks are already congested, and further development would add to traffic and pollution problems. Building on this site would result in the permanent loss of valuable green belt land, damaging the rural character of the area. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the allocation of major housing developments in NOR01.  

Comment

Representation ID: 8930

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Caroline Bradbury

I&O_9423
Sites which have the greater transport routes and facilities to support such development and that will have minimal impact on landscape and neighbourhood. Eg  NOR01

Comment

Representation ID: 8964

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9457
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: 8997

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Sant

I&O_9490
#NAME?

Comment

Representation ID: 9239

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9732
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: 9354

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashall Land

Agent: Marrons

I&O_9848
We support the Council’s identification of Northwich as a strategic focus for new development. However, as mentioned in response to SS29 above, the broad blobs on Map 5.6 illustrating ‘Northwich growth options’ are misleading and not representative of the opportunities for housing delivery in Northwich. Stage One of the LAA clearly identifies a range of sites, so the those illustrated on the map are not the only options. The Council will need to rely on these smaller sites to deliver the high housing need. Throughout the whole borough, smaller sites will be a critical source of new housing as larges sites are constrained by the Green Belt at several key settlements. These smaller sites are important for housing delivery because they diversify supply and can help create more socially integrated communities. For example, our client’s Site is underutilised land adjacent to an existing residential settlement and with good links into existing infrastructure and services. It is a sustainable location for new housing and the development will have minimal impact on the open character of Davenham. Contributions from these types of sites are key to meeting the high housing targets and must be factored into growth plans for Northwich.

Comment

Representation ID: 9370

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Malcom Whitwood

SS30
I&O_9864
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich. NOR01 - The expansion to the North east of Barnton should be considered, due to its links to the 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.