Comment

Representation ID: 9373

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Tony Whitlow

I&O_9868
Mere Brow Farm - To whoever is responsible for this ridiculous scheme, just build on brown field sites first, or demolish Winnington Rec club and use the Brunner Mond land , or finish winnington avenue. If you carry on like this we will loose all our green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 9414

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Deborah Mercer

SS30
I&O_9909
Yes, specifically in relation to NOR6, which relates to a large area to the south of Davenham broadly bound by Church Street, London Road and the A533.  The draft growth area designation at NOR6 is bisected by a strong diagonal hedge line. To the south of the hedge the land is relatively open, agricultural in character and actively farmed. North of the hedgeline however the character of the land is completely different; it is more intimate in character and it contains the Grade 2 * listed Davenham Hall alongside its associated parkland with a large number of TPO protected estate trees. It borders with the Grade 2* listed building at St Wilfrids Church on Church Street. Looking at the parkland alone, its value is reflected in the fact that it is subject to an Article 4 direction, removing all agricultural permitted development rights to ensure long term preservation of character and contribution. More fundamentally, the special character of this northern half of NOR6 is reflected in its full inclusion within the Davenham Conservation Area. The adopted Davenham and Whatcroft Neighbourhood Plan (2017) identifies this parkland as one of the two defining elements of the Conservation Area, asserting that the land and its interspersed estate trees form part of the setting of Davenham Hall. It is clear that the Conservation Area and the listed building at Davenham Hall, along with its setting, are Designated Heritage Assets for the purposes of planning policy. The draft Local Plan states at paragraph 5.12 that the draft Growth allocations should exclude those areas of land that are subject to ‘showstopper’ designations which would restrict their potential future development and contribution. One such ‘showstopper’ is identified within paragraph 5.12 as land containing Designated Heritage Assets. This is a reasonable approach given that the Council have a statutory duty, under the 1990 Act, to maintain or enhance the character of any desiganted Conservation Area, alongside a legal duty to maintain the character and setting of any Listed Building and its curtilage. The Council would be failing on both fronts were it to include the parkland at NOR6 as part of a volume housing allocation. On the draft Plans own terms therefore, the northern half of Growth Area NOR6 should be excluded from any future consideration. It is accepted that the current Plan shows the Growth areas in draft form only. The next version of the Plan, which will presumably define allocations more accurately, should ensure that the boundary of NOR6 (if it is to be retained) should be drawn to exclude the northern half as defined by the Conservation Area boundary. The ongoing suitability or otherwise of the smaller NOR6 allocation could then be assessed as part of the wider Regulation 19 Plan process. I also have a concern with NOR7. This area is prime arable farming land with a further function to mitigate local flood risk. Development here would impact local watercourses and result in a loss of greenfield land, contrary to sustainability objectives.  Building on NOR6 and NOR7 would significantly threaten Davenham’s unique village character and place stress on the local infrastructure which is already close to breaking point, but building in the conservation area, with the considerable impact on the setting of the 3 grade 2/2* listed buildings would eradicate 200 years of heritage and cause irrevocable change to a village which dates back to the Domesday Book. In reality, the future expansion of Northwich, if needed, would be better directed to the less constrained sites such as NOR1, 2, and 8 to 12.

Comment

Representation ID: 9433

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Woodmansey

I&O_9928
-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: 9439

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9934
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: 9446

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Holly Hodkinson

I&O_9941
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: 9512

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Smith

Map 5.6 Growth Areas
I&O_10007
Dear Sir, I have recently attended a drop-in session with regards the Local Plan and I would like to express my views. I urge the Council to give greater consideration to the following areas:  - NOR10 - Weaverham, which has existing infrastructure and capacity to accommodate further planned growth and an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing with good access to the A49  - NOR08 - Land adjoining the A556 -opposite Hartford, where development would benefit from its better transport links A556 and access to main services. Although Green belt the traffic from this proposed development would not add pressure on either Hartford or Davenham directly. I also believe that the further regeneration of Northwich town centre, where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed-use housing development, should be considered, together with further expansion of Winnington Village. As a Davenham resident, there are numerous constraints that I would urge you to consider regarding the development of Davenham village (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. This is something that I have already been personally affected by. 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 of Davenham and Bostock. 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: 9582

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: John and Anne Buckley

NOR06 & NOR07
I&O_10077
We are emailing to object to proposals to build new estates in Davenham. Davenham is a historic rural village in a conservation area. The  scale of development proposed is disproportionate to the  villages 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 are already suffering from heavy congestion. Further development would exacerbate traffic,air quality and safety concerns. To cross London Road in Davenham at peak times is a nightmare, particularly when you also have to navigate round parked cars. Public transport is minimal, and additional residents would place additional strain on a limited bus service. The nearest railway station is several miles away. The sites NORO6 -NORO7 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 run-off and impact local watercourses. Futhermore there would be a loss of biodiversity and greenfield land, contrary to sustainability objectives. Two years ago there was serious flooding of the River Dane there has also been flooding round the junction of Eaton Lane and Hartford Road . New housing will only increase the surge of water. Building on productive farmland and with the loss of habitat for numerous species of birds and animals just seems to be a tragedy. Also of concern, we have no Doctor's surgeries or Dentists in Davenham, so new residents will have to travel to seek treatment, increasing the number of cars on the road. It will not affect us, but we are sure that parents of school age and college aged children will be worried about the capacity of  schools and colleges to accommodate their children. We are 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 dwelling. theses 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, we would urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reconsider the proposed development allocations within the parish. We request that all current proposals for large-scale residential development in Davenham be removed or significantly scaled back in the final Local plan.   We believe that the further regeneration of Northwich Town Centre where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a prime opportunity for sustainable, mixed -use housing development should be considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 9586

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10081
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: 9700

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10196
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: 9820

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10317
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: 9894

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth O'Dea

NOR01
I&O_10391
If NOR01 was to be built on with the addition of the filling of the lime pits on wallerscote lane in winnington how would the current one way bridge across the weaver in Barnton be able to cope with all of the additional traffic?

Comment

Representation ID: 9896

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Greg Osborn

I&O_10393
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: 9969

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Day

I&O_10466
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich 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. I do have great concerns about employment opportunities in the general area and the pressure on existing infrastructure. The public transport infrastructure is inadequate and more housing will purely increase the pressure on the local road network.

Comment

Representation ID: 9990

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Hayley Andrews

SS30
I&O_10487
In answer to question SS 30- The areas highlighted, if successful, would not only have a detrimental impact on our local farming and wildlife, but would significantly impact the footprint of our VILLAGE. The highlighted areas are larger than the total area of the existing village and there cannot be seen as "expansion" to an existing area. Weaverham has a long history of village life and building of this scale would mean the village totally loses its well established identity! Encapsulating the villages whole area would surely cause a strain on our (already) stretched GP service.

Comment

Representation ID: 10057

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lady Sue Day

I&O_10554
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. I do have great concerns about employment opportunities in the general area and the pressure on existing infrastructure. The public transport infrastructure is inadequate and more housing will purely increase the pressure on the local road network.

Comment

Representation ID: 10060

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Irvine

I&O_10557
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: 10063

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Yvonne Chadderton

I&O_10560
-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: 10091

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Parton

NOR07
I&O_10588
I am writing to strongly object to the development of land off Eaton Lane on Davenham. As a lifelong resident of Davenham I am saddened to see an application to add 440 homes to an increasingly congested and crowded village. The proposed development would double the size of the village and diminish the reasons why I choose to live here. The fact that this land is green space concerns me greatly. Wildlife including for example nesting owls, foxes and badgers would have their habitats destroyed. The lane itself and Eaton Lane are not fit to provide access to such a sizeable development. This would mean that at least 800 cars would be travelling down a lane/road that is not built for such traffic. This will lead to dangerous driving conditions, traffic jams and ruin village peace and tranquillity. Again this is why we live here! The area has suffered from significant flooding and this project would contribute to this negatively. There are businesses down the lane that will suffer from this development also. This area of the village is precious as it is a place to walk, cycle, enjoy the village wildlife and scenery and all importantly, raise everybody’s well being. Please do not destroy this for us and future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 10127

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lynne Manifould

I&O_10624
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: 10133

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lynne Manifould

I&O_10630
Davenham:  CWACs Local plan states that they will continue to:- Protect the character of a village: allowing developers to double the size of Davenham is 3. 4. at odds with this Promote wellbeing: these proposals would allow development on green spaces Only consider Prime farmland in exceptional circumstances - Both NOR06 & NOR07 are both considered to be prime farmland Ensure there is appropriate infrastructure! Roads at capacity, Buses infrequent and availability not conducive to regular use. Trains require users to drive to all nearby stations - car parking is costly and limited - 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. 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. There is no Doctors or Dentists surgery in the village and the primary school is operating at capacity. The bus service is limited and there is no access to a railway station without driving at least 15 mins to Hartford, Northwich or Plumley - NOR06 - Land to the rear of Church Street and London Road Lack of adequate infrastructure is already known to CWAC Highways. This area would require access via two of the three busiest streets in the village! These roads operate at capacity at peak times A known and designated conservation area is situated in the centre of NOR06  NOR06 is home to two working farms and both of these landowners (either side of the Conservation area) have publicly stated they have no intention of selling their farms We are aware of a 72 Bed Dementia care nursing home currently working its way through the planning process - When approved, it will take land in NOR06 and increase traffic via staff visitors and suppliers There is a long established footpath here that would need to be protected A large sewage pipe runs across this  grass areas are homes to foxes hedgehogs bees etc and should be protected under existing wildlife and conservation requirements/regulations - NOR07 - Land off Eaton lane - currently down a single track lane Another Infrastructure hotspot known to CWAC Highways, as all current traffic from Eaton Lane, Eaton Crescent & Pritchard Drive, have to use Hartford road (The third known busiest road in the village) to access the A556 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 development of 440 houses would easily equate to over 800 cars - and Eaton Lane could not cope with this volume of traffic Eaton Lane (post cattle grid) is home to a ground works business, a working farm and a small residential site plus a Caravan Club recognised Camp site. These businesses would be severely impacted by any housing development NORO7 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 The Land is also 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 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! We are aware of planning applications and interest from developers that are more aligned with the scale and character of the village.These include a current pre application submitted by Stonhams for a reasonably sized development and village Community centre on land adjoining Butchers Stile  We are also aware of Tatton Estate’s plans to develop the Hamlet of Bostock, opposite the Hayhurst Arms i.e Bostock Green. These two developments, if included in the Local plan would collectively add circa 200 dwellings to the Parish 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: 10140

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Woodward

SS29
I&O_10637
I think that the proposed number of houses for Barnton listed in table B.3 is too big as so many houses would have a detrimental effect on the local area as listed below.  Increase in climate change and other environmental factors Such a large number of houses would have a detrimental effect on the local nature habitats, affecting number and variety of different wildlife species in the area.  Increase of traffic in the area, would raise direct air pollution and reduce green spaces, so reducing the areas for vegetation to grow and therefore habitat for wildlife.  It would also increase the amount of hard landscape which can have knock on effects such as making the area more prone to flooding as water cannot drain away.  Additionally less vegetation also means less air purification, so that means that the indirect air pollution would be worst.  Lack of trees mean areas warm up quicker, so increasing heat pollution and drought. Reduction in wellbeing Such a large increase in houses would increase traffic in the area, which then leads to increases in pressure points in the road traffic structure.  The result is likely to affect residents wellbeing when short local journeys then take a lot longer than usual and become very frustrating. Reduction in air pollution quality due to massive increase in housing, from building to running the housing to increase in traffic – would then affect the health of local residents.  Any residents who have any sort of breathing problems could see their symptoms increase.  Reduction in green spaces of leisure and to promote general wellbeing in the area would also affect residents mental health. Be detrimental to infrastructure So many houses in each area would dramatically affect the local infrastructure, with a large increase in vehicles making the local road structure a lot busier, slowing journey times, creating congestion and damaging road structure.  Extra people and children in the area would also put pressure on local schools and doctors and other facilities.  Lack of jobs in the area would mean that people would have to travel out of the area, creating more traffic congestion. Damage to the character of the countryside and its villages So many houses would mean that the local villages would lose their character and distinction.  The countryside would disappear as the villages blend together to become one large residential area.  Lack of countryside and farmland also affect the local and national ability to produce food.    In the case of Acton Bridge a smaller number of houses up to about 300 near the station along Hilltop road would be more acceptable as it would increase the village size without being too detrimental on infrastructure eg there could actually be positive affects with an increase in family homes and children helping local primary schools to thrive without them being overwhelmed.  New home owners would be able to access the rail network and also be close to the A49 so having quick access to the M56 and linked motorway network.     Recognising that there will have to be some housing in some areas I think that in the case of Barnton a small development up to about 300 houses would be a more acceptable idea as it could be tailored so that traffic could easily access the Runcorn road via Stone Heyes lane, residents could then easily use that main road to access Runcorn & Liverpool and also the A49 junction to the M56 and linked motorway network.  It would increase the village size without being too detrimental on infrastructure eg there could actually be positive affects with an increase in family homes and children helping local primary schools to thrive without them being overwhelmed.  If you require any further details please dont hesitate to get in touch.

Comment

Representation ID: 10142

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Manifould

SS30
I&O_10639
Question 30. - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich -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: 10146

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Anthony Bone

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_10643
Question SS 30 Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Northwich? Response - Yes, Particularly relating to areas NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12. These areas would only be impacted if Option A was not selected as they are within the Green Belt. If other options were chosen then to develop within them the council would have to change its designation to  ‘grey belt’, the government describes Grey Belt as ‘land of poor quality and ugly areas on protected Green Belt land’. These areas are certainly not poor quality or ugly! The majority of the land in these areas is farmland, obviously any reduction in farmland would harm national food supply, demand for which would be increased due to the increase in housing development. Any large scale development in these areas around Weaverham would have a massive impact upon Village, for each home built there could potentially be 3 more people and 2 more cars (meaning thousands extra). It is already nearly impossible to get a doctor’s appointment and I personally have to attend a dentist in a different area due to the local one being full. Parking at the local shops is already difficult and would be severely impacted. Access to some of these areas would be difficult, particularly NOR12 especially as the only access would be through an existing housing estate or from the western side via two single track roads (Well Lane and Shady Brook Lane). The local infrastructure is just not fit for thousands more people and cars. The local train station ( Acton Bridge) only has a very small car park probably big enough for a dozen cars, and the locals already have issues with inappropriate parking in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 10150

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Bone

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_10647
Question SS 30 Do you have any further comments about any of the potential growth areas identified around Northwich? Response - Yes, Particularly relating to areas NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12. These areas would only be impacted if Option A was not selected as they are within the Green Belt. If other options were chosen then to develop within them the council would have to change its designation to  ‘grey belt’, the government describes Grey Belt as ‘land of poor quality and ugly areas on protected Green Belt land’. These areas are certainly not poor quality or ugly! The majority of the land in these areas is farmland, obviously any reduction in farmland would harm national food supply, demand for which would be increased due to the increase in housing development. Any large scale development in these areas around Weaverham would have a massive impact upon Village, for each home built there could potentially be 3 more people and 2 more cars (meaning thousands extra). It is already nearly impossible to get a doctor’s appointment and I personally have to attend a dentist in a different area due to the local one being full. Parking at the local shops is already difficult and would be severely impacted. Access to some of these areas would be difficult, particularly NOR12 especially as the only access would be through an existing housing estate or from the western side via two single track roads (Well Lane and Shady Brook Lane). The local infrastructure is just not fit for thousands more people and cars. The local train station ( Acton Bridge) only has a very small car park probably big enough for a dozen cars, and the locals already have issues with inappropriate parking in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 10172

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Tracy Graham

I&O_10669
I am writing to you to express my concerns over Question SS30 of the consultation paper regarding the potential growth areas identified around Northwich, in particular areas NOR10, 11 and 12 around Weaverham. My main concerns are listed below and I would appreciate answers accordingly. 1). Can you please send me a copy of the traffic risk assessment that covers the area with the new infrastructure that should have been completed. 2). What are the increased numbers of people expected within your future plans? 3). Please explain what the benefits will be to the community with the increase in people and traffic. 4). How will the monies gained from the sale of the land benefit the community? 5). What type of housing is being considered? 6). What plans will be in place to increase local education places, GP services and dental practices to support the increased population? 7). Please supply a copy of any studies that the council has commissioned in order to support their decision to change the use of the land.

Comment

Representation ID: 10225

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Yvonne Travis

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_10722
Question SS30, NOR10, NOR11 and NOR12, I am concerned that if we build any more houses in Weaverham we will have more issues with flooding, the doctors surgery would not be able to cope with the increased numbers of patients. The traffic through the village would be intolerable and there would be a substantial increase in school numbers, but not enough places in the local schools. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10274

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Helen Kirsopp

SS30
I&O_10771
SS30 I am worried about the proposal to add 5000 extra homes. I don't believe they will support the town as Northwich is just a dormitary town. The extra traffic will exacerbate the already over congested entry and exit points to the town, particularly Winnington single lane swing bridge. We already have the prospect of hundreds of lorries a week for the capping of the lime beds. Also developers seem to renege on providing the schools and doctors they put in to get planning. Our whole town infrastructure is not up to it. I barely go into town these days as it is such a pain. These proposals will make it much worse. I would say 1000 extra would be much more palatable. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10275

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Kerry Blakeman

I&O_10772
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 (in support of providing housing for young people) should be seriously considered. I am aware that TATA have released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10304

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Taylor MRTPI (ret)

I&O_10801
Northwich Growth Options. The suggested growth options display a continued generally westward “drift” of development around Northwich, including some locations which are poorly served by infrastructure and services. The areas NOR01 and NOR08 look particularly constrained. Development of NOR09 and NOR10, in conjunction with significant development at Cuddington and Sandiway, would result is a virtual coalescence of these areas and an undesirable belt of urban sprawl west of Northwich. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10355

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Weeks

I&O_10852
In relation to question SS30 the village cannot sustain any extra housing and cars on the roads without causing severe congestion on the roads. Plus the existing Doctors surgery, dentists and schools are already over subscribed. The infrastructure is already overcrowded with the recent housing development on Winnington Avenue. Weaverham has had more than it's fair share of housing developments.