Comment

Representation ID: 11530

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12028
The Northwich Neighbourhood Plan identified that there were significant areas of the town suitable for regeneration and where new development could be located on previously developed land (https://www.northwichtowncouncil.gov.uk/northwich-neighbourhood-plan/).

Comment

Representation ID: 11822

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janice Kaye

SS 30
I&O_12320
NOR10, NOR11, NOR12 There has been more than enough building around the Northwich area in recent years. The countryside around the town and local villages should stay in the greenbelt for the population already living here to enjoy the surrounding countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 11841

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqueline Scurry

SS 30
I&O_12340
I am contacting you to express my concern and alarm at having been notified of a possible decision to build houses on the farmers field which is a working price of land.  In regard to SS30 - Main concerns centre firstly around the fact it is green belt is used for farming and cultivating crops and would not only damage the local farming industry but moreover detrimentally impact upon our little village. This is a huge piece of land which floods every single year. It would also result in significant additional traffic on Northwich Road and make the appauling traffic delays particularly around school times, become impossible. The thought of creating housing along this road leading into the Grange private school and the extensive delays this will cause is unfamable not to say the wildlife that will be lost inclusive of foxes badgers and bats.  I respectfully request an acknowledgement to my email to affirm my objection against these possible proposed plans to ruinous countryside and our village. 

Comment

Representation ID: 11868

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Finnigan

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_12371
Areas I strongly believe should NOT  be considered and concerns -  NOR06 / NOR07 Davenaham is an historic village and a designated Conservation Area, surrounded in A1 Grade farming / food manufacturing. We need to  produce our food as locally as possible to be sustainable and reduce air miles. If this type of land is allowed to be built on, where will all the extra food required for these households come from...? - The scale of development proposed is entirely disproportionate to the village size and setting. - Infrastructure already operating or near capacity  - A556 Hartord Road  / London Road suffers heavy congestion, particularly at school / collage times increasing the safety of children - public transport is minimal and no train station, unlike other surrounding villages e.g. Lostock, Cuddington - sites identified include areas at risk of flooding or on land that serves an important function in mitigating local flood risk - village facilities - school currently at near capacity with little or no room for increasing. No dentists or Doctors - having to travel into Northwich  - no or very little village car parking to service the facilities - threat to the abundance of wildlife that live in the proposed green belt fields - there are already development applications by WAIN Estates to develop green field / wildlife area in the village, along with a potential development at Bostock which potentially will add some 200 homes, adding to the points already raised - the type of home most developers are building are premium and not affordable or helping first time buyers and our own village families to remain locally where they have grown up and love.

Comment

Representation ID: 11917

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carol Fletcher

I&O_12431
I would like my concerns to be recorded concerning the potential development of land surrounding the Northwich area, but specifically Davenham village. We moved to the village because it had a strong community feel, and was surrounded by accessible green spaces and rights of way over adjacent farmland, which I frequently enjoy, it felt semi-rural. I have looked at the proposed sites and scale for new housing and I am really concerned and upset. The village already feels at capacity, with traffic congestion and parking. The schools are struggling to accommodate numbers and the existing infrastructure in terms of doctor’s surgeries already seems broken, it is already really difficult to secure an appointment. I know these will be common problems for many areas under consideration, but further building will, I strongly feel change the nature of the village and make it a less desirable place to live.

Comment

Representation ID: 11939

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Mercer

I&O_12453
Question 30 - Do you have any further comments about any of the growth areas identified around Northwich?  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 Wilfrid’s 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 northern half of NOR6 is clearly part of the curtilage and setting of the Hall, as evidenced by the estate layout, character, positioning with respect to St Wilfred’s Church etc. The Hall is currently subject to a separate planning application for the construction of a very large building adjacent to the Hall which already threatens to endanger its unique and historic setting. The addition of a further, potentially very significant housing scheme positioned on the other side of the Hall, would materially and irrevocably harm those elements of the listed building. 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 designated 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 appreciate the opportunity to participate in the consultation process and I hope my comments provide a constructive contribution to the debate.

Comment

Representation ID: 12037

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Richardson

NOR 10, NOR 11, NOR 12
I&O_12551
With regard to the proposal for Mere Green Farm, I would like it to be noted I strenuously object to the proposal for the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 12038

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs H Ashton

I&O_12552
PLEASE ! No more housing for Davenham, in, or around us. Think about the enviroment. I live in this pretty rural village and we already have `The Pavillions`, `Whittington Gardens`, `Rookery Close`, `The Grange`, `Hilltop Grange`, `The Oaks`, empty spaces filled along Church Street, empty spaces filled along London Road, end of Fountain Lane has been filled and stretches around Mount Pleasant Road. Davenham is an `open rural green VILLAGE` not a `claustrophobic cement cramped TOWN`  

Comment

Representation ID: 12043

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Frith

I&O_12557
Planning proposal for new homes Barnton  I have been looking at your proposed sites for housing development in Northwich and am really disappointed that you are considering development in the green belt around the town. Green belt is protected land to prevent urban sprawl, exactly what you’re proposing if you decide to build there. Not only that but the character of our outlying villages will be permanently damaged as will the countryside. Our green spaces should be protected! I am writing in direct response to question SS11 and would strongly opt for Option A to retain the green belt for everyone’s benefit.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12049

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Deborah Powell

NOR06, NOR07
I&O_12563
As a long-standing resident of Davenham, I wish to formally object to the inclusion of development sites NOR06 and NOR07 in the July 2025 Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18). While I support the need for new housing across Cheshire West and Chester, the scale and location of these particular proposals are deeply concerning and, in my view, completely unsuitable for our village. Local Infrastructure Is Overstretched Davenham’s infrastructure is already at or near capacity. Roads including the A556, Hartford Road, and London Road are regularly congested, and more housing will only worsen this situation — increasing traffic, pollution, and safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Public transport links are poor, with limited and irregular bus services. Most residents must drive to train stations in nearby towns, where parking is limited and expensive. Our schools are full, with no clear plans for expansion. GP surgeries and healthcare providers are overstretched, and emergency services — including ambulance and fire — are under significant pressure. Adding hundreds of new homes would further compromise already strained public services. Loss of Village Character and Community Identity Davenham is a historic village with a Conservation Area and a strong local identity. The scale of these developments would fundamentally change its character, turning a small rural community into a suburban extension. Open green spaces that support community wellbeing — including walking and cycling routes — would be lost. These aren’t just fields to us; they are part of daily life, vital for mental and physical health, and essential for maintaining a rural lifestyle in an increasingly urbanised area. Environmental, Flood Risk, and Wildlife Concerns – Including NOR07 (Davenham West) The proposed site NOR07 (Davenham West – North of Eaton Lane) is of particular concern. According to the draft Local Plan, this parcel is approximately 21 hectares with capacity for around 443 dwellings — a major development that would overwhelm this part of the village. However, a significant portion of NOR07 falls within the draft order limits of the Hynet Hydrogen Pipeline , as confirmed through Cadent’s Stage 2 consultation. The pipeline route has recently shifted further east, which is likely to directly impact the site’s developable area due to required safety standoff distances. Given that the application for the pipeline is expected in Autumn 2025, and the consultation is at an advanced stage, it is highly unlikely the route will change. This major infrastructure constraint has not been adequately considered in the site’s inclusion in the Local Plan. Beyond the pipeline, this site also includes flood risk areas and ecological constraints due to its proximity to the River Weaver and associated local wildlife sites . There is a well-established tree belt on both sides of the river that provides essential habitat and further reduces the developable area. In addition, both NOR06 and NOR07 are prime agricultural land , currently farmed and used for crops such as maize and Cheshire new potatoes. Eaton Lane farmland is recognised as among the best in the UK for growing conditions. These fields support a rich ecosystem — bats (with suspected roosts), badgers (including protected setts), owls, foxes, butterflies, bees, and buzzards — and are integral to the local biodiversity network . Cheshire Wildlife Trust is actively reviewing the area for designation as a formal wildlife corridor, and the Vale Royal Locks and nearby fields are part of this. The impact on wildlife, flooding, and greenfield loss directly contradicts the sustainability goals of the Local Plan. More Suitable Sites Are Available Elsewhere The Local Plan should focus on sites with existing infrastructure and better transport connectivity. These include areas around Barnton, Gadbrook Park, Winsford, Weaverham , and Winnington Village , where roads, services, and public transport are already better developed. In particular, site NOR08 (opposite School Lane, Hartford, along the A556) is a far more logical location for new development. It benefits from direct access to Hartford train station , local amenities, and stronger road links — without compromising greenfield land or small rural communities. There is also untapped potential in Northwich town centre , where brownfield land and underused commercial areas offer a golden opportunity for regeneration-led, sustainable development . Contradictions with CWAC’s Own Planning Policies The current proposals conflict with several of CWAC’s stated Local Plan priorities: Protecting village character — yet this would double the size of Davenham. Promoting health and wellbeing — while removing green spaces vital for this. Preserving prime farmland — which both NOR06 and NOR07 are. Ensuring infrastructure is in place first — but Davenham’s roads, schools, and services are already overstretched. A More Balanced Way Forward As a resident, I’m not opposed to new homes — but they must be carefully planned and proportionate. The Parish Council has acknowledged interest in smaller-scale developments that better match the village’s size and infrastructure, such as: A pre-application from Stonhams for a modest development and community centre near Butchers Stile. A proposal from Tatton Estates to develop the Hamlet of Bostock. Together, these could add around 200 homes to the parish in a more sensitive and sustainable manner, without overwhelming the village or destroying its character. For all these reasons, I strongly urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to remove or significantly reduce the proposed allocations for NOR06 and NOR07 in the final version of the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 12059

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Tate

I&O_12573
a)  both site development and house construction should follow the best of sustainability, all surface water should be contained on the site using ponds porous paving and water tubs. the site should contain all flash flood water using ditches at the perimeter of the development. Only foul water should leave the site and enter the local drainage system. Access to and from the site should be designed to minimise impact on the local infrastructure.  b) House construction should also be sustainably constructed rainwater should be collected in tanks within the structure and used for all but drinking water, showers not baths. Photo Voltaic on all roofs minimising impact on main supplies, Air Source Heat Pumps. Housing character should be modelled on that of the village, and meet the needs of the village.  c) Any development south of Walnut Avenue should contain a road linking Gorstage Lane to Northwich Road (Weaverham side of Memorial Wood) with cycle lanes relieving the village of the ever increasing number of vehicles that travel along its unsuitable roads. The area immediately South of the High School Playing fields should be used for school bus and parent parking for those who drop off or pick up their children morning and afternoon.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12080

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Lee

I&O_12594
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 prime opportunity to support CWACs local plan for sustainable mixed use housing development and should be seriously considered  And if transport links and finally a new bridge at Winnington is built then there is more land available at Winnington village    I have to say when reviewing the local plan ( and I understand it’s a consultation document ) I still found it hard to believe that anyone would even consider building so many houses in an around the village of Davenham If even half of the proposed options progressed this would not be a village where I live but a town & worryingly for anyone living here based on recent housing  developments in last few years improvements to infrastructure & amenities for current & new residents has been non existent  So I am sure many of the village have had to spend time reviewing and contacting you in an effort to highlight concerns & suggestions to help with proposed house building and at the same time not destroying a village & also having help from building companies with support for infrastructure , parking . Amenities

Comment

Representation ID: 12107

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Martin & Kelly Foskett

NOR01
I&O_12621
Area NOR1. This area should be considered due to its access to travel infrastructure, A559, and existing facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 12115

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Derwent

NOR01
I&O_12629
- 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: 12147

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susie Felix

Nor 10, Nor 11 and Nor 12
I&O_12661
My concern for this are: Loss of productive farm land and the impact that  has on a rural community and the diversity of the residents.  Loss of wildlife habitat. There is potential for this increasing the biodiversity and quality of agricultural land by entering into Government environmental schemes such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive, or Local Nature Recovery schemes. The aim of these schemes is to increase biodiversity, flood protection, protection of hedges and woodland, carbon sequestration, to name a few. This opportunity would be lost by developing this land.  These sites could be used for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as part of other developments in the county (or further a field).  The impact this could have on issues of flooding and drainage. Much of the land in the Nor10 area already floods on an annual basis. land under Nor 12 leads directly towards the River Weaver. Based on the flooding issues that happened on Sandy Lane 2/3 years ago, and the impact that had on the housing that back onto the river at this point, it is unknown whether this could happen again at other points along the river. Access to these proposed sites is currently poor (in particular Nor 12) and would require a significant chance to the road infrastructure. Issues around transport link and use of sustainable transport - there is limit bus and train access to and from the village. If anyone wished to commute to work, driving maybe their only option. For example, the earliest bus to Northwich I believe is around 7.30/8am. In addition to this, despite Acton Bridge Station being some 5 mins away from the village, and on the Liverpool to Birmingham line, whilst this is an excellent transport hub for a rural community, the earliest train into Liverpool (to get to main line trains) is  06.49 (and every hour thereafter) which limits opportunities to commute, via sustainable transport links, to major employment hubs.  Other Infrastructure issues - such as the availability of school places (of all ages), health providers, open spaces for residents and children's general wellbeing and mental health. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12150

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: G L Bradbury & Son

Agent: Buckingham Land & Property LLP

NOR01
I&O_12664
Sites which have the greater transport routes and facilities to support such development and that will have minimal impact on landscape and neighbourhood. For example, NOR01 would be better for growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 12198

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Lawrence

NOR06, NOR07 and NOR08
I&O_12712
I do not agree with any of the proposed '3 options' for Northwich as they ALL contain NOR06, NOR07 and NOR08 where I vigorously oppose any future development. This is because there are ample empty or disused brownfield sites in Northwich (and all the other CWAC towns) which should be built on BEFORE swallowing up ANY currently productive arable fields, especially those around the semi rural villages of Moulton, Mere Heath and Davenham Options B & C are identical, whatever nomenclature is used, so there are really only 2 options not 3 I would question why the term greenbelt does not apply south of the A556. Many residents in Moulton do not want to be swallowed up by Davenham,  like Mere Heath has been, or for that matter, Wharton by Winsford. We are a separate village/community/identity and wish to remain as such so need green boundaries to remain in place not have housing creeping ever closer We already have developers eyeing up the 2 fields south of Niddries Lane with only 1 planned entrance, the common land between Weaver Grange and the Bovis development plus fields north west of the former. The Wain Homes development near the Pickmere roundabout in Mere Heath is already going ahead as it seems is the hydrogen pipeline south and south west of the village. How much more can you cram in here without there being continuous houses all the way from Northwich to Winsford? In Northwich alone, I would suggest brownfield sites such as the old Northwich Tax Office, Weaver Square, the bottom of Winnington Hill and the huge site still unused nr. Brunner Mond are built on before ANY of this local plan is considered. Full use of the white elephant that is Barons Quay should also be much higher on the agenda

Comment

Representation ID: 12226

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Nash

I&O_12740
:  For areas NOR10, NOR11 and NOR12 Against further development :   The proposed developments threaten to disrupt local ecosystems, green spaces, and wildlife habitats that are integral to Weaverham’s rural character  and protected green belt.  Housing should be built where there is clear demand, accompanied by strategic plans to support sustainable growth—not imposed on small communities that lack the resources to absorb it.   Access to one of the proposed developments is via Wallerscote Road which is already a narrow, heavily trafficked road.  Access will be on a tight corner with limited visibility with no pedestrian access into the site.  This conflicts with CWAC Local Plan Manual for Street Guidance Policy ENV7. The infrastructure of the area is already under strain and further development would exacerbate congestion: GP surgeries, dentists, public transport are overstretched not to mention sewage/drainage services.  An unsustainable burden will be placed on already underfunded services.   One of the proposed sites is well known for having issues with drainage and development will exacerbate surface water runoff and cause flooding into nearby homes and highways. Wildlife habitat: this will be destroyed, which currently support bats, which are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,  hedgehogs which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 6) and the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996, nesting birds, foxes etc.  There are by-laws and protective designations in place that are likely to be breached. Will any ecological reviews be undertaken before any approval? The roads cannot take more traffic. The Winnington Turn Bridge is a Grade 2 listed structure, and is already under strain from the increased traffic due to the Winnington housing developments and will be further by the proposed infill on the old lime beds which will see hundreds of HGVs a week transporting waste via the local roads.  The area has already accepted more housing than it can sustain and will lead to unsustainable sprawl with no strategic infrastructure support.  A significant portion of the local population is opposed to the outlined developments and it is important that CWAC respect the voices of the people who live here and will be directly affected by these decisions.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12228

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Timothy O'Keeffe

I&O_12742
I strongly object to the inclusion of NOR01 as a potential growth area around Northwich.   Green Belt harm: Development would cause permanent loss of openness, erode settlement separation, and damage the countryside character. Exceptional circumstances for release have not been demonstrated.   Unsustainable location: The site is poorly served by public transport and outside realistic walking/cycling distances for most daily needs. Development would be car-dependent, increasing congestion and carbon emissions.   Infrastructure strain: Northwich already experiences congestion, and schools, health services, and utilities are under pressure. NOR01 would worsen this without credible solutions.   Landscape impact: The site forms part of the open setting of Northwich. Urbanising it would significantly harm local character.   Reasonable alternatives: The Council has acknowledged brownfield capacity and existing allocations. These should be prioritised before releasing Green Belt land such as NOR01.     For these reasons, NOR01 is not a sustainable or appropriate site for development and should be removed from further consideration in the Local Plan.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12240

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ben Nancollis

SS 30
I&O_12754
I write regarding the option of developing land in Davenham for new housing, specifically options 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. Eaton lane has already suffered flooding as a result of new housing developments being built in the local area. 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: 12260

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gary Rogers

I&O_12774
Additional to the 3 sites identified in the plan, I’m led to believe there are another 96 houses planned Off Wallerscote Road, Weaverham. Weaverham has always been a rural Community, the roads and infrastructure are insufficient now. Not enough capcity at local GP or NHS spots for dentist. Mobile phone reception poor with all providers. Flooding with minor rainfall, poor drainage.

Comment

Representation ID: 12269

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ann and Peter Stewart

NOR01
I&O_12783
Whilst you have stated that all the priorities will be considered in each area including current use of land and its environment  ie agriculture, livestock, wildlife, trees, birds etc.   However, we would like to highlight an additional problem that may not be known and that is the constant flooding of the fields in Anderton, which currently sits in zone 2 of the environmental flood risk map as flood risk 1-100 years.  We have lived on [redacted] , Anderton for 17 years and over the past 7 yrs we have suffered from increasing substantial flooding from the field; We have enclosed one of the videos for evidence of the severity of flooding that now affects us and our neighbours that border the field.  It is clear now that the environmental flood risk map may need to be reviewed in the light of environmental change and land movement. Our concern is that if it is just assumed by the council that we get flooding 1-100years we would urge you to show them the enclosed evidence; adding more land disturbance, through construction could potentially exacerbate the devastation we now experience every time there is a prolonged bout of rain.

Comment

Representation ID: 12278

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Ball

I&O_12792
My objections to development on the Green Belt in Barnton and Anderton are as follows: Loss of Green Belt and Wildlife Impact The Green Belt plays a vital role in protecting wildlife, which is already under significant pressure from human activity. Many birds and small mammals rely on this natural habitat, and further loss would cause permanent ecological harm.   Inadequate Transport Infrastructure The Winnington Swing Bridge is already operating over capacity and suffers frequent congestion. Additional housing and industrial traffic would make the situation unsustainable.   Cumulative Housing Development A substantial new estate has already been completed at Winnington within the last decade. Further planning permission has been granted for 1,200 homes on the former Tata site. These developments alone will generate a significant increase in local traffic and demand for services.   Industrial Pressures The recently approved Tata solar panel scheme will bring hundreds of additional lorry movements to the area. This will further strain both roads and air quality.   Pressure on Public Services Access to essential healthcare is already under severe strain. It is increasingly difficult for residents in Barnton and Anderton to obtain GP or dental appointments, and further housing growth will exacerbate this issue.   For these reasons, I believe development on Green Belt land is neither sustainable nor justified. Protecting the Green Belt under Option A is the only option that safeguards the environment, infrastructure capacity, and quality of life for existing residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 12297

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Phillips

NOR01
I&O_12811
I strongly object to the inclusion of NOR01 as a potential growth area around Northwich. Green Belt harm: Development would cause permanent loss of openness, erode settlement separation, and damage the countryside character. Exceptional circumstances for release have not been demonstrated. Unsustainable location: The site is poorly served by public transport and outside realistic walking/cycling distances for most daily needs. Development would be car-dependent, increasing congestion and carbon emissions. Infrastructure strain: Northwich already experiences congestion, and schools, health services, and utilities are under pressure. NOR01 would worsen this without credible solutions. Landscape impact: The site forms part of the open setting of Northwich. Urbanising it would significantly harm local character. Reasonable alternatives: The Council has acknowledged brownfield capacity and existing allocations. These should be prioritised before releasing Green Belt land such as NOR01. Environmental impact, flooding is an ongoing issue and recent planning has not taken current residential properties into account. For these reasons, NOR01 is not a sustainable or appropriate site for development and should be removed from further consideration in the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 12306

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Powell

I&O_12820
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 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: 12320

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Aston

NOR01
I&O_12834
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: 12336

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Kinder

I&O_12850
I am writing to complain about the planned developments in and around Davenham.  I live in this lovely village that I feel will be ruined by lots more development.  The main street is already very busy around rush hour especially near the petrol station. I often have to wait a long time in traffic on the way home from work. This would only get worse with more houses as traffic levels will increase. I have a son at high school and the extra traffic would make it more dangerous for him  to get to school I really enjoy walking around the fields and being in the countryside.  This is good for my and my families wellbeing.  This would be destroyed with the new development.     The infrastructure in Village is at breakpoint.  You can never get a doctors appointment and the school is full. The new development would put more pressure on local services.    Yours Sincerely  Simon Kinder and Julie Kinder Davenham residents.    

Comment

Representation ID: 12356

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gaynor and Andrew Thompson

I&O_12872
There has been no direct communication with the residents in this area.  I am deeply concerned that such a significant proposal has not been communicated more transparently to local households. With regard to the options presented, I strongly support Option A, which is to preserve the existing Green Belt land.   There are several reasons why I believe this development should not proceed: Protection of Wildlife The proposed site provides vital habitat for a wide range of species, including bats, badgers, hedgehogs, and many bird species. Green Belt land plays an essential role in maintaining biodiversity, and further encroachment by 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. Pressure on Local Services Residents of Barnton and Anderton already face long waits to access GP and dental services. An additional 1,700 households would place unsustainable pressure on healthcare provision, 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 housing development would cause: Significant harm to wildlife and the environment, Severe traffic congestion and infrastructure issues, Unmanageable strain on local health services, and A reduction in the overall quality of life for existing residents. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed housing development on Green Belt land and urge the Council to protect this area in line with Option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 12389

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Johnny Mellor

SS 30
I&O_12906
I strongly object to the inclusion of NOR01 as a potential growth area around Northwich. Green Belt harm: Development would cause permanent loss of openness, erode settlement separation, and damage the countryside character. Exceptional circumstances for release have not been demonstrated. Unsustainable location: The site is poorly served by public transport and outside realistic walking/cycling distances for most daily needs. Development would be car-dependent, increasing congestion and carbon emissions. Infrastructure strain: Northwich and Winnington already experiences severe road congestion, and schools, health services especially GP’s and utilities are under pressure. NOR01 would worsen this without credible solutions. Landscape impact: The site forms part of the open setting of Northwich. Urbanising it would significantly harm local character. Reasonable alternatives: The Council has acknowledged brownfield capacity and existing allocations. These should be prioritised before releasing Green Belt land such as NOR01. For these reasons, NOR01 is not a sustainable or appropriate site for development and should be removed from further consideration in the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 12394

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Kaye

SS 30
I&O_12911
NOR10, NOR11, NOR12 - I strongly object to any further building whatsoever on green belt land in Weaverham and Northwich.