Comment

Representation ID: 10389

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lisa White

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_10886
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding Weaverham village. (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12) In answer to question SS 30- Save the green belt , save our villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 10402

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Nicholls

I&O_10899
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.   I am aware that TATA have also released more land in Winnington, which could easily see a further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10420

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kerry and David Bentley

I&O_10918
There are several reasons why we believe the proposed development between Hough Lane and Marbury should not proceed: Protection of wildlife The proposed site is a haven for a wide range of species, including bats, badgers, hedgehogs and many bird species. Badgers and foxes regularly visit the gardens that back onto the fields and it is a corridor for creatures to cross into the woodlands behind the houses on the opposite side of the road(Gunners Clough), and at Pump House wood, where there are several established badger setts. Farmland and green space plays an essential role in maintaining biodiversity diversity, and further encroachment by a housing development would have a devastating effect on already pressured wildlife populations. Infrastructure Constraints Local transport infrastructure is already under severe strain. The Winnington Swing Bridge in particular is heavily congested and adding thousands more vehicles would exacerbate the problem significantly. In addition approval has already been granted for 1,200 homes at the former Winnington Tata site. The cumulative impact of both developments would overwhelm the area. 3. Pressure on local services. Residents of Barnton and Anderton already face long waits to access GP and dental services. We very much doubt that the 3 nearest schools also have capacity to provide places for the hugely increased number of children. An additional 1,700 households would place unsustainable pressure on these, reducing the quality of services for existing residents. Additional industrial traffic On top of housing pressures, we understand that hundreds of heavy lorries are expected in connection with the new government- approved Tata solar panel scheme. This additional burden will further damage roads, increase noise and pollution and worsen traffic congestion. In summary, the proposed development would cause: Significant harm to wildlife and the environment Severe traffic congestion and infrastructure issues Unmanageable strain on local health services A reduction in quality of life for existing residents For these reasons we strongly oppose the proposed housing development and urge the council to protect this area in line with Option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 10451

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Nadia O'Boye

I&O_10949
I believe that before further greenfield sites are released, greater focus should be placed on regeneration within Northwich itself. Brownfield land and underused sites in the town centre, including land along the riverside opposite Barons Quay, represent a prime opportunity for mixed-use and sustainable development. Additional land has also become available in Winnington, which could accommodate further expansion of Winnington Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10455

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Elsbeth Tucker

NOR01
I&O_10953
NOR01 - Although green belt the expansion to the North east of Barton, as this has good transport links to the A559, it would have minimum impact on the surrounding landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 10459

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Deakin

NOR01
I&O_10957
My specific concerns re a development at NOR01 (Barnton) are listed below: Risk to human life - inadaquate doctor facilities for increased population and weak unsafe one way bridge which could easily collapse if usage is increased. Elimination of ecosystem which includes hundreds of species of animals and plants Extremely poor transport links both into Northwich and out to the M56 leading to an increased carbon footprint, unnecessary pollution and damage to local area.

Comment

Representation ID: 10469

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Wills

I&O_10967
I have seen the public consultation document regarding potential future housing developments in the Northwich area. I am specifically looking at the area shown on the map as NOR01 surrounding Barnton and Anderton. I would like to respond to question SS11 and state that my choice is Option A - Retain the Greenbelt. This area of beautiful countryside is very important to local residents. We use it for wellbeing such as running, cycling and walks. It provides peace and tranquility and home for local wildlife. It would be a huge, irreversible loss if this area were to be developed.  

Comment

Representation ID: 10477

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Nicholls

NOR01
I&O_10975
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: 10481

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Gwen Yardley

I&O_10979
I am writing to raise my concerns about building any new houses on green belt land in Cheshire West and Chester or anywhere else in the country. I understand the need for housing but believe this could be achieved by using existing unoccupied properties certainly within CWAC and on land designated as brown fields. I believe the new houses on the old industrial site at Winnington, Northwich was a good decision and have improved the area. However, all large housing developments need to have the correct infrastructure in place to accommodate for the extra people and vehicles, such as roads, schools, GPs and Dentists etc, which sadly does not appear to have been the case. I do not think CWAC or any other Council should be considering using green belt land for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 10490

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Pleasant

NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12
I&O_10988
Weaverham are areas NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12. After reviewing these I need to highlight the following concerns. As any increase in housing in the area should only be considered once these issues are addressed. The local GP is oversubscribed and therefore the service is far from ideal. A further GP surgery would be needed before any increase in housing in the area. The main hospital Leighton is also struggling with the numbers it supports. We have personal experience of this being a challenge not only due to delays but also distance away (to the extent that my father was in palliative care when his consultant appointment finally came through). Victoria Infirmary is a great asset but another hospital needs to be invested in is the area is going to continue to expand. There are very limited NHS dentists in the area so this is another investment needed. Bridges at Barnton and into Northwich can already cause jams as they were not designed for the increased traffic and with the risk of the HGVs for the lime beds these need support / extra bridges putting in place. At least one of the suggested sites is at risk of flooding every year. Will there be a stipulation that housing being built should be affordable and applicants meet certain criteria so that local residents get first opportunity on the properties in the same way the small estate by the Hanging Gate did? These should be on all new housing to help local people buy property rather than them being snapped up by investors and rented out. Though there are train stations in nearby villages these all have very small car parks and the frequency of trains is far from ideal (hourly at best into Manchester or Liverpool). With the College closing in Hartford the options for further education are seriously limited with Sir John Deans always over subscribed and costs time to travel to Warrington or Winsford mean that for some this will risk them not being able to follow their chosen vocation. Is there any plan to look into this and increase local options? Electric vehicle infrastructure structure. This is already minimal with no charging services in the Weaverham area other than people charging at home. Very few charging stations are available in the town centre. As the push for moving to electric continues how will this be supported as the number of households in the area increase? What plans are there to challenge the empty properties in the Northwich area that are being left to fall apart?  My key concern is once the greenbelt is built on it's lost forever. We need to protect it as much as possible and look at all other options before this is even considered. Thank you for allowing us to have our say and I hope these issues will be taken into account with any decisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 10499

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Andrews

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_10997
The highlighted areas surrounding the village are larger than the village itself and so are not an extension of the area. Therefore the village would completely lose it's identity. These large developments would have a detrimental impact on wildlife and the farming areas that surround the village. Farmers are already being hit hard! The scale of the proposed areas would no doubt have an even greater impact on our already stretched GP services, schools and other. Weaverham has a limited sewerage system already. FLOODING- The NOR10 area is already prone to flooding and residents in Green Park face issues year in, year out with the gardens and properties flooding! More houses, roads etc will only make this problem worse. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10510

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Priestley

I&O_11008
Answer - There is significant capacity for housing on brownfield land in the area, studies show that thousands of potential homes could be delivered in these areas. Building on green belt often produces expensive executive homes and not the affordable houses that local people need more so therefore, building on greenbelt sites would seem to be counter productive to the housing targets. Economic growth can come from urban regeneration, improved infrastructure, and investment in existing communities not just land release, once green belt is lost it is irreversible, future generations lose both the land and the environmental benefits. Supporting urbanisation with infrastructure, transport, and services costs significantly more in the long term and has not been realised in more recent house building plans completed in the area. Retaining the green belt is about sustainable planning, not blocking development. A brownfield first policy with better and more affordable housing strategies and urban regeneration would meet the needs of the local population without sacrificing long term environmental and social value.

Comment

Representation ID: 10533

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alastair Kennedy

I&O_11031
NOR01 Although designated Green Belt should be considered for some housing. Once again transport links to the A49 are good, Barnton is well served with shops and a Medical Practice and primary school. Apparently smaller planning applications have been submitted in the areas in question already ,Bostock Green application by Wain Homes being one, surely they must be taken into account when looking at adding to housing. With the planning process, shortage of skilled tradesmen etc, these are unlikely to be built before 2030. Also, smaller developments are easier to integrate in villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 10656

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sandra Stonham

Agent: Marrons

I&O_11154
We support the Council’s identification of Northwich as a strategic focus for new development. Our client has been discussing the opportunity for development at their site and sustainable growth in Davenham with the Parish Council for some time. This engagement has informed their vision for the site and consequently our client is proposing a high-quality, residential extension to Davenham that sensitively integrates with the existing residential area and landscape/townscape and incorporates local community ambitions to deliver a multi-use community centre which is much needed by the community and local primary school. This is a scheme that will give back to the community and is fully endorsed by the Parish Council, who will be the beneficially of the new community facility, and who have consulted the community at Town Hall events in August 2025. It is just one example of potential missed opportunities the Council faces by taking such a broad approach to planning growth in the key settlements. Sites such as our clients should be considered to inform plans for potential growth in the Northwich urban area.

Support

Representation ID: 10706

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Allcock

I&O_11204
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: 10711

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Allcock

I&O_11209
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: 10714

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqui Allcock

NOR01
I&O_11212
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: 10734

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Kennedy

NOR01
I&O_11232
NOR01 Although designated Green Belt should be considered for some housing. Once again transport links to the A49 are good, Barnton is well served with shops and a Medical Practice and primary school. Apparently smaller planning applications have been submitted in the areas in question already ,Bostock Green application by Wain Homes being one, surely they must be taken into account when looking at adding to housing. With the planning process, shortage of skilled tradesmen etc, these are unlikely to be built before 2030. Also, smaller developments are easier to integrate in villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 10749

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Marguerite Mackenzie

NOR06, NOR07, NOR08, NOR10
I&O_11247
I am very concerned about some of the councils proposals, and urge the council to give this matter much greater thought, in particular, the areas NOR06 and NOR07. I have lived in Davenham for about 9 years, and during this time have noticed, how busy it has become. Infrastructure capacity is at its full, we are already experiencing traffic congestion each day and this is without extra houses being built. The local network will not be able to handle the increased volume of traffic. Looking at the map again, the intention is to build 862  and 443. I assume these properties will be 3 /4 bedroom accommodation, for families. The schools in this area are full , we have one pharmacy, Doctors surgery full to capacity, healthcare! there is a good deal I could say about that. However, looking at the other areas NOR08 and 10 which already has an  existing infrastructure that would accommodate such a housing project due to A49 and the bypass A556 allowing access to and from the areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 10763

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cherie Aston

NOR01
I&O_11261
NOR01 although currently identified as a green belt site the expansion to the North East of Barton should be considered due to its proximity to major transport links (A559), and access to existing village facilities. It would have minimal impact 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: 10822

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Kelly

I&O_11320
I strongly object to the inclusion of NOR1 as a potential growth area. This allocation is unsound for the following reasons: a) Transport Infrastructure – Swing Bridge Constraint The Council itself has acknowledged that the Winnington/Barnton Swing Bridge is a “ key pinch point which causes significant congestion ” and that improvements are required to “ ensure that the transport network can cope with new housing and business growth in the local area ” (Winnington Bridge Corridor statement). Despite submitting what was described as a “ strong business case ” for Government funding through the Levelling Up Fund, the bid failed. With no secured funding or programme in place, the transport network cannot support further large-scale development in Barnton. It is contradictory and unsound for the Council to identify the Barnton area as a housing growth location while its own evidence strongly shows that a critical infrastructure constraint remains unresolved. Barnton already suffers from severe congestion, particularly at the A533 and Barnton Crossroads. New housing will only worsen this, undermining highway safety, increasing air pollution, and reducing quality of life for existing residents. B) Infrastructure Capacity Local schools, GP surgeries, and public transport are already at or over capacity. New housing in Barnton would inevitably be car-dependent, in direct conflict with the Council’s declared Climate Emergency and sustainability commitments. C) Flood Risk and Environmental Impact The Weaver Valley and surrounding areas are sensitive to flooding. Large new housing allocations would increase surface water run-off and reduce resilience to flooding, while also eroding local biodiversity and valued landscapes. This is a Greenfield and the environment impact to the area is likely to be unacceptable. e) Character and Identity Barnton is a distinct historic community with its own identity. Large housing estates risk merging it into the wider Northwich urban area, undermining its character and sense of place. f) Brownfield Land First The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that brownfield land is prioritised before releasing Green Belt or greenfield sites. I therefore ask the Council to confirm whether all cleared brownfield sites have been developed to capacity . If they have not, allocating further greenfield or Barnton sites would be unjustified and contrary to both national policy and common sense. g) Recent Solar Farm Approval The Planning Inspectorate has recently approved a major solar farm at the Wallerscote Lime Beds—overturning the Council’s rejection—despite the significant traffic impacts the Council identified. The project includes up to 500 HGV movements per day , routed through the local area, this isninfrastructure the Council had already deemed overstretched. Approving further housing allocations in Barnton, on top of this, runs directly counter to the Council’s own evidence on congestion and transport capacity, further undermining the soundness of NOR1 as a viable growth option.

Comment

Representation ID: 10835

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Broster

NOR01
I&O_11333
NOR01 – Barnton (NE expansion) : This site has good transport access via the A559, close links to village services, and minimal impact on the wider landscape. It could deliver the housing mix needed without compromising rural character.

Comment

Representation ID: 10843

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Oliver Jones

CUD05
I&O_11341
I am writing to formally object to the local plan with strong views that the green belt areas should remain intact. Cheshire is proud of its green belt and this should not be over developed to satisfy arbitrary target set by the Government. Most specifically I object to any developments around CUD05 & CH03, this is greenbelt area and should remain and developments will only open the door to wider developments and a land grab of our greenbelt areas. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10863

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Powell

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_11361
Regarding options NOR06 and NOR07, I am strongly of the view that neither of these are acceptable or appropriate. The arguments against the options being considered in these categories have been thoughtfully argued by the parish council and others and I fully support their view. Davenham is a village. It is not simply an extension of the Northwich urban area. It is distinct and divisible. My family have connections with the village for over 200 years and it has always a complete and separate area from both the town of Northwich and adjacent village Moulton. It is not just the idea behind the proposals that is fundamentally at odds with the community, but the scale of proposed development is at odds with both the infrastructure and character of this part of Cheshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 10885

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sheila Powell

I&O_11383
Regarding options NOR06 and NOR07, I am strongly of the view that neither of these are acceptable or appropriate. The arguments against the options being considered in these categories have been thoughtfully argued by the parish council and others and I fully support their view. Davenham is a village. It is not simply an extension of the Northwich urban area. It is distinct and divisible. My family have connections with the village for over 200 years and it has always a complete and separate area from both the town of Northwich and adjacent village Moulton. It is not just the idea behind the proposals that is fundamentally at odds with the community, but the scale of proposed development is at odds with both the infrastructure and character of this part of Cheshire. I strongly object.

Comment

Representation ID: 10887

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11385
On behalf of our client, we have grouped potential growth areas in Northwich (as identified in the I&O document) into three broad categories: • Sites which are well related to existing boundaries and infrastructure, as well as being close to transport infrastructure (well performing growth areas): NOR04, NOR05, NOR06, NOR07, NOR09, NOR10, NOR11; • Sites with good access to transport infrastructure, but would form awkward boundaries or enclosure (reasonable growth areas): NOR02, NOR03, NOR06; and  • Sites which are a distance from the transport infrastructure, as well as lacking strong boundaries, and would extend into the landscape (poor growth areas): NOR01, NOR08, NOR12. We also note that it is important that the possible growth options for Northwich – especially those to the south west along the A556, will need to be considered in relation to those for Cuddington and Sandiway. It is considered important in both Green Belt and spatial planning terms that Hartford and Cuddington do not conjoin. This may mean that sites NOR08 and NOR09 are less favourable.

Comment

Representation ID: 10908

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Richardson

I&O_11406
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding weaverham village (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12). ... The damage these proposals would have on the environment, ecosystem is irrevocably disastrous, and that's without even considering the footfall and realistic daily travels. There is already so much traffic going through the village that there is always an abundance of cars packed everywhere in and outside school terms. The local transport (buses) are not frequent enough to be relied upon and the local train stations only have one train an hour and are at least a 30 min walk either to Green bank or acton bridge, should anyone be commuting to Manchester or liverpool. This would mean more commuting, supposing their families - have you considered doctor practices? school places? dentists? If we merely build more houses, we need to think about the lifestyle and requirements of people in said houses, rather than building and having no real thought of the consequences and the strain this can put on the rest of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10948

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11446
The Council would not support the development NOR 10, 11 &12. Also, NOR1 & 2.

Comment

Representation ID: 11093

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tata Chemicals Europe Limited

Agent: Axis

I&O_11591
TCEL support the principle of identifying growth areas and acknowledge that some encroachment into the Green Belt will be necessary to facilitate continued growth. However, the new Local Plan should clearly articulate a hierarchical approach whereby development is prioritised within existing settlement boundaries, with a strong emphasis on the redevelopment of brownfield land before considering sites on the periphery of settlements. In addition, TCEL believe that growth areas should not be limited to residential and employment uses but should also include provision for industrial development, including built waste facilities (as opposed to landfill), and renewable energy projects such as those proposed at the Winnington Limebeds. Any policy framework for growth areas could also take a more strategic approach by identifying locations suitable for circular economy development. For Northwich specifically, TCEL recommend that the Lostock Works site is recognised as a strategic location for circular economy initiatives, given its existing industrial role and capacity to accommodate complementary uses without undermining its safeguarded waste management function. By broadening the scope of growth areas to include industrial and renewable energy development, and by prioritising the reuse of previously developed land, the new Local Plan can support sustainable economic growth, accelerate the transition to a low-carbon  economy, and ensure that Northwich plays a leading role in delivering climate resilience and green infrastructure for Cheshire West and Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 11404

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Connie Johnson

NOR01
I&O_11902
NOR01 – While this site is currently designated as Green Belt, the potential for expansion to the north-east of Barnton warrants serious consideration. Its proximity to major transport routes, including the A559, alongside convenient access to established village facilities, makes it a highly suitable location for development. The impact on the surrounding landscape would be minimal, and the site offers a strong opportunity to deliver a balanced housing mix in line with the requirements of the Local Plan.