Comment

Representation ID: 512

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Historic England

I&O_595
Any option should be accompanied by a robust assessment of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting to inform the best solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 2783

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Cooke

I&O_2953
It will just increase the traffic even further and roads are already very congested in peak times

Comment

Representation ID: 3523

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Byrne

I&O_3697
While I would reluctantly select Option A as the least damaging of the spatial choices, I strongly object to the proposal for up to 500 new homes in Cuddington and Sandiway Parish. This allocation is excessive, unjustified, and inconsistent with both national policy and the Council’s own adopted Local Plan. --- Settlement Role and Housing Distribution  Cuddington and Sandiway are categorised as Local Service Villages under the settlement hierarchy. Local Plan Part One Policy STRAT 8 (Rural Areas) makes clear that rural settlements should accommodate only modest levels of development, largely through infill, small-scale development, and redevelopment to meet local needs. By contrast, the proposed allocation of up to 500 homes represents a strategic scale of growth that is more appropriate to towns and designated growth areas. It is therefore inconsistent with Policy STRAT 8. The NPPF (paragraphs 79–80) also requires that housing in rural areas should be proportionate and reflect local needs, which this proposal fails to do.  --- Housing Targets Already Met The parish has already delivered significant levels of new housing in recent years, meeting (and exceeding) its fair share of the borough-wide housing requirement. Allocating a further 500 homes would disproportionately burden the parish and contradicts the spatial balance intended by Local Plan Part One Policy STRAT 5 (Transport and Accessibility), which seeks to direct the majority of growth to more sustainable locations. --- Infrastructure Capacity Local infrastructure is already under strain: Highways: The A49 and A556 are heavily congested, forming the natural confines of the settlement. Policy STRAT 10 (Transport and Accessibility) and the NPPF (paragraph 110) require development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid severe cumulative impacts. A development of this scale would directly breach this policy test. Education & Healthcare: Schools and GP services are already at capacity. Policy STRAT 11 (Infrastructure) requires new development to be supported by appropriate infrastructure, which is clearly not deliverable in this case. Utilities & Drainage: Existing drainage and utility networks are constrained, with no evidence in the consultation that expansion is feasible or viable.  --- Settlement Pattern and Natural Boundaries The A556 and A49 provide natural and defensible boundaries to the built form of Cuddington and Sandiway. Large-scale development beyond these confines would: Lead to urban sprawl, Erode the rural setting and character, Risk coalescence with neighbouring settlements. This would directly conflict with Policy STRAT 9 (Green Belt and Countryside), which seeks to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and with the NPPF (paragraph 174), which requires planning to protect valued landscapes and recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside.  --- Sustainability and Climate Objectives A housing allocation of this magnitude in Cuddington and Sandiway would undermine both local and national sustainability objectives: Transport Sustainability: The parish has limited local employment and public transport, making new residents car-dependent. This contravenes Policy STRAT 5 (Transport and Accessibility) and the NPPF (paragraph 105), both of which require development to reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable modes. Environmental Impacts: Large-scale development here would increase emissions, threaten biodiversity, and add to flood risk. This undermines Policy STRAT 1 (Sustainable Development) and NPPF paragraph 152, which require that growth is planned in a way that supports the transition to a low-carbon future and reduces risks from climate change. --- Conclusion While I reluctantly support Option A as the least harmful overall approach, I strongly oppose the allocation of up to 500 homes in Cuddington and Sandiway.  This level of growth:  Conflicts with Local Plan Part One Policies STRAT 1, STRAT 5, STRAT 8, STRAT 9, STRAT 10 and STRAT 11. Breaches multiple NPPF requirements around proportionality, sustainability, infrastructure provision, transport, and countryside protection. Ignores the fact that the parish has already met its housing target under the current plan period.  Risks urban sprawl beyond the A556/A49 natural confines, undermining the character and identity of the parish. I therefore urge the Council to: Substantially reduce or remove the proposed allocation for Cuddington and Sandiway.  Direct strategic housing growth to towns and designated growth areas with infrastructure and sustainable transport capacity.  Limit any future development in Cuddington and Sandiway to small-scale, proportionate schemes within existing settlement boundaries, consistent with the role of a Local Service Village.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3566

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3740
Some growth required but services are stretched so more required

Comment

Representation ID: 4835

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heat Pumps and Engineering Directors' Pension Fund

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5185
The Council’s recognition of multiple growth options around Cuddington and Sandiway is welcomed; however, site CUD04 is highlighted as a well contained location with strong access to local services and transport infrastructure. Its proximity to facilities and amenities further supports its suitability for housing development. A carefully considered release of Green Belt land to meet objectively assessed housing needs is justified where it creates a sustainable and clearly defined boundary that complements the existing urban area. The site’s excellent access to public transport and local amenities aligns with the Council’s goals for sustainable growth and fostering healthy communities, in accordance with Paragraph 96 of the NPPF (2024). Development here would help reduce reliance on private vehicles and support greater social inclusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 4955

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Marsland

I&O_5314
All the areas marked for development around Cuddington and Sandiway contain places of Natural Beauty and Natural Diversity.  Construction and increased population in these areas will have a devastating effect on wildlife and the fragile ecosystems within the area.  Once these areas of historic beauty and tranquility are destroyed, we will never get them back again and this, would  be the legacy of the current CACW Council and the Labour government.

Comment

Representation ID: 5059

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5418
Seek to add areas eastwards towards Northwich.

Comment

Representation ID: 7011

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrigan

I&O_7479
The Cemex Sand Quarry could provide a good location with good access in and out of the Key Service Centre and could be available during the life of the New Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 7299

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7779
There has been significant developments in the area, the existing services and infrastructure are at breaking point and no more development is needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 7381

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7861
Cuddington and Sandiway has limited services. Our GP surgery has closed down. Our public transport is limited - 1 bus or train per hour is not enough for people to access work elsewhere and live in the village. Building additional houses would just increase the number of cars on the roads. The village has had several major housing developments in the last 20 years which have significantly increased the size of the village while services have declined rather than improved. The village has had enough development, and should only consider limited infill housing in future, if any at all.

Comment

Representation ID: 7404

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lynn Stocks

I&O_7884
As previously commented, the existing character of the villages within the current Neighbourhood Plan and any new developments, should be developed with this in mind. This includes all types of infrastructure too.

Comment

Representation ID: 7597

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes North West

Agent: SATPLAN Ltd

CUD02
I&O_8084
Deliverability:  The National Planning Policy Framework requires that to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and that development of the site is viable. As evidenced in these representations, the Site is available now and offers the opportunity for the early delivery of a high-quality residential development that will provide both market and affordable housing and would make a valuable contribution to addressing housing land supply in Cheshire West and Chester within the next 5 years. The level of affordable housing for this Site and elsewhere in the borough should be determined further to a borough-wide viability assessment with a strong focus directed towards realistic rates that can be delivered. The Site is within a sustainable location where there is good access to services and facilities including public transport infrastructure. Given the proximity of the site to existing residential development, along with the very high levels of containment, the Site represents a logical extension to Sandiway. Several detailed technical investigations have already been undertaken which demonstrate the suitability and deliverability of the site for residential development. There are no technical impediments to development. All matters including landscape, access, drainage, ecology, amenity, and infrastructure have been addressed through a landscape-led and technically robust design. Where mitigation is necessary, it is minor and achievable via standard planning conditions. The full planning application submitted by Barratt & David Wilson Homes North West very clearly evidences the deliverability of the Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 7784

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Sophie Chivers

CUD01
I&O_8272
I am writing in response to the Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation and specifically to raise my strong objection to any housing development on the land adjacent to my home in Cuddington your reference Cud01. Myself and my Fiancé bought our first house in March this year. Mainly due to the beautiful views of nature and countryside, which we were told was greenbelt and could not be built on.  I have lived in Cuddington my whole life, my dad, ex councillor and local youth club runner has lived his whole life here and my grandfather local doctor, MBE for charity work for the village and founder of the youth club also lived here the majority of his life.  One of the great attractions of living here is the open rural landscape – we currently enjoy beautiful views across fields where a local farmer grows British potatoes, alongside woodland that is home to a wide range of wildlife. This area contributes enormously to the character of the village, local biodiversity, and the overall wellbeing of residents. The proposed housing developments would: Destroy valuable farmland at a time when supporting British food production is more important than ever. Remove natural habitats that support birds, mammals, and other wildlife, disrupting a delicate local ecosystem. Significantly alter the rural character of the village, replacing open green space with large-scale development. Increase pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, including schools, healthcare, and roads.  I fully recognise the need for new homes, but I do not believe this site is appropriate. Development here would result in permanent and irreversible damage to both the environment and the local community. There are more suitable brownfield and urban sites that should be prioritised ahead of removing valuable countryside and farmland. I therefore respectfully request that this location is removed from consideration within the Local Plan. Thank you for giving residents the opportunity to make their views known.

Comment

Representation ID: 7884

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8373
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 7976

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Keeler

SS 36
I&O_8465
Designated Areas outlined are ‘exceedingly significant’ . These are currently GREENBELT as we understand it. Reference is that options are primarily to serve these properties with EXISTING TRANSPORT infrastructure which is woefully inadequate and struggles currently to serve existing community. Mixed use …. Is rather ‘vague ‘. No suggestion of provision for the properties of BUNGALOWS thus allowing the existing community residents to remain INDEPENDENT   as. The GOVERNMENT PAST& Present cannot adequately care for elderly in the community . Schooling is already struggling with maximum capacity of places. Where do you anticipate the residents will commute to. Furthermore to have gainful employment ? The centre of Northwich and surrounding areas has ‘brown field / commercial unoccupied properties’ & are  in desperate need of being utilised to improve the infrastructure but …. No mention ? There are some individuals who have blatantly flaunted planning within this locality and are operating businesses and taking liberties of planning with total disregard to those who submit applications and abide by planning sanctions . There has been no notification to those in the area as existing Rate taxpayers  of any of these public meetings it has been down to those community residents to put notices up in the area and on line. In this current day of technology why can’t PLANNING DEPARTMENTS contact the resident's of these PUBLIC MEETINGS ? EMAIL  ?? LISTEN TO YOUR PUBLIC OPINION AND RESPOND with empathy. We shall attend and can’t help but wonder what/ how you plan to justify these areas .

Comment

Representation ID: 8003

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Doug Bedford

Map 5.8
I&O_8492
Dear Sir / Madam, In response to the 15 year local plan of proposed areas for development in Cuddington and Sandiway please find attached the option I believe is acceptable along with comments for your consideration: SS5  - Spatial Strategy Options Map 5.8 Cuddington and Sandiway  Growth Options Option A - 'Retain the Green Belt'. Is the only acceptable option in my view for the village of Cuddington and Sandiway.  Option C is completely unacceptable and unfounded due to poor transport infrastructure, bus services are completely inadequate,  the rail services slow and unreliable, not to mention insufficient parking. I would not call these 'transport Corridors'. as referred to in the document. While I am not in favour of the proposed quantities of new housing even for Option A I  appreciate the need for more housing. As stated in the document , there are considerations to the environment, sustainability and  social needs. If Cheshire West opts for anything other than Option A I do not believe it is truly considering these points. Cuddington and Sandiway is a small rural community with attractive surroundings enjoyed by all. The village barely has the services to support the current population. I currently do not see any new proposals by Cheshire West to invest in local services and infrastructure in the village.  Any housing plans should consider the local community with a high percentage of affordable housing which there is a shortage of in the village, this would allow more homes to be built on a smaller footprint limiting the damage to the surrounding countryside.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8032

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Latham

SS 36
I&O_8521
Further to my comments on the planning website for the current proposals for building South of Chester Road either side of Daylesfords Lane, I write to you in connection with the current Local Plan for Cheshire West and Chester. The inclusion of Sandiway in these plans, even the smallest version of which would load on another 187 homes, potentially 400 cars and 600 people cannot be justified. There are many issues associated with the current plans, including those of biodiversity and the protection of open countryside, however they all have two things in common: Firstly, Sandiway and Cuddington's public infrastructure cannot accommodate such expansion with targeted, dedicated provision, rather than a developer payment to the council which has no guarantee of realising services.  This is the case wherever one looks in our community, whether it is the lack of a dedicated GP Practice, forcing residents onto heavily oversubscribed practices in the area, NHS Dentists, schools, and public transport which is patchy, not joined up, infrequent, unavailable in evenings and subject to frequent cancellation.  Secondly, the traffic and road issues that such expansion of the community will cause. This is already an issue on School Lane and Weaverham Road, not to mention Daylesfords Lane which queues in the rush hour. The recent prolonged roadworks at the White Barn and the noise and environmental pollution this caused foreshadows what will come to pass if these sites are permitted to be built upon.  This is a quiet, semi-rural community which simply cannot absorb the number of homes proposed in these lots. There are significant amounts of brownfield sites within the Northwich and Winsford area which are more suited for cleanup and construction, not to mention the rest of Cheshire West. This is not "Nimbyism" - if developers were willing to directly  fund the construction of schools, doctors and dentists, and invest in public transport to ameliorate the effect of their construction there are many who would be willing to consider the development of environmentally responsible building in the local area.  Whilst I agree for the need for more affordable housing in Cheshire West, I object to the inclusion of Sandiway and Cuddington in the Plan in the strongest possible terms and it is my firm belief that there are other communities more suited for inclusion within it.  

Comment

Representation ID: 8090

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8579
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 8204

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Nicholas Gregory

I&O_8693
I am a resident at [address redacted] that bought the property in March 2025 on the premise that the fields out the back were along the green belt and therefore could not be built upon. I would like to see the reasoning and approval that this appears to no longer be the case if this should progress. Additionally, myself and my partner regularly walk through the fields in the evening where there are multiple bats in different areas. Bats and roosts are protected meaning I would also would like to see the ecological surveys undertaken proving that the area is suitable for building. Furthermore, the noise emitted in both construction and post construction (additional residence) is going to completely change the environmental noise produced in the area. You will need to provide proof at regular intervals to show that adverse impacts are not being caused to already in-situ residents. I don’t see how it’s possible to provide reports that do not demonstrate noise levels significantly above ambient levels and therefore cause adverse impacts on the residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 8264

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8753
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 8266

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Russell Carter

SS 36
I&O_8755
To whom it may concern I understand that the Government has instigated a review of local plans in order to meet its current housing targets. It is my belief that there are more sustainable solutions to any housing shortage than the building of large developments in under-resourced areas that will irreversibly destroy the environment. For Sandiway and Cuddington, there is an existing and appropriate Local Plan (2015-2030) and the assessments and logic applied when this was drawn up should be retained in any updated version. The existing plan (incorporated into the new Option B) allowed for additional housing on carefully selected sites that makes use of brownfield land. So far 200 homes have been delivered in this small community. Most of which are larger family properties rather than the affordable properties required for first time buyers and those wishing to downsize whilst staying within the village. In this time our only GP Practice was closed against public wishes and there is increasing strain on school places. We have a responsibility to protect and enhance our natural and historic environment rather than to build over it and destroy it forever. Farmland is going to be increasingly important for the UK’s food security and is gaining growing attention across the UK. According to the National Farmers’ Union, 'the UK has a “criminal” dependence on foreign countries to source some of its food’ and we are no better prepared now than we were before the Pandemic. Good quality agricultural land is going to be increasingly important for our small island particularly in the current unstable geopolitical times we are experiencing. The farm land around Sandiway and Cuddington has been farmed for hundreds of years and still is today. It needs protecting from irreversible destruction at the hands of Developers taking commercial advantage of a short-sighted Government housing strategy.  The government’s own figures show that abandoned and derelict houses across England number c. 720,000. Utilising these empty homes would contribute around 50% of their target whilst ensuring properties become available near established infrastructure. It would also reduce these sites vulnerability to crime and further decline. Regeneration should be the priority for helping housing shortages before farmland and/or small under-resourced communities with limited infrastructure are destroyed forever to bulid properties that in no way address local needs.  Option C identifies Sandiway and Cuddington as offering 'sustainable transport corridors’ which the Government believes would support significant housebuilding. This is a false assertion as our village is only serviced by a small hourly bus service and a small, unreliable train service. Local roads are already carrying too high a volume of traffic and there are no major employment opportunities in the immediate area. Any additional housing around the edges of the village would encourage car usage. This would be disastrous for the environment and safety of our community. If home working is assumed in any plans, then this discounts a) the drive for employers to get their workforce back into the office and b) the school runs by car that will inevitably accompany all housing developments as there are no safe, walkable routes to schools, especially post Year 6. Local health, education and transport services are already inadequate for the existing village community. Our GP Practice was recently closed and all other local Practices are either rated ‘poor’ in the recent GP Patient Surveys or are already oversubscribed. so only Option B along with urgent attention to health and education services will support a sustainable village going forward. Having considered the three options proposed, I strongly support Option B that recognises the considered strategy within the existing local plan.  If we fail to pay attention to the needs of our existing community and the needs of future generations by supporting food security through farming, primary healthcare needs and environmental protection, we will be heading towards an irreversible disaster.  Your sincerely

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 8491

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8982
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 8562

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Wroblewski

SS 36
I&O_9053
I am writing with regard to the planning policy consultation options discussed in our local neighbourhood planning meeting recently.  I disagree with the volume of housing proposed in our semi rural village of Cuddington and Sandiway. Such a volume of housing will lead to sprawl and will totally change the character of our village due to plans suggested going beyond the boundaries of our village and taking away our means of recreational walks in our local countryside and the enjoyment and health benefit to our community. They also make the bypass A556 become a major road dissecting the village which will change the nature of our community.  However, if I need to select an option, it is OPTION A . 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8604

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: John Trasler

CUD05
I&O_9095
I’m writing to express my concern at the number of potential properties identified in the possible new Local Plan. The proposal seems to in effectively double the village housing area. Site CUD05 is of particular concern as a resident of Delamere Park. The road infrastructure on both Norley Road and Cuddington Lane is already busy and dangerous with no  pedestrian path or provision to walk to the village or station. To consider more housing on these routes seems the height of folly. The other developments seem to add far too many properties to the village. The village has lost its surgery, has a limited or no bus service depending where you live and we are currently looking at further expansion on Chester Road with no provision for infrastructure. Under the proposed new plan both the A49 and A556 become completely suburban routes for much longer stretches. These plans will not benefit or enhance the life of the community- they are far too big in scale. Please think again.

Comment

Representation ID: 8660

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9151
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 8834

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9327
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 8967

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9460
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 9242

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9735
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester

Comment

Representation ID: 9388

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Sage

SS36
I&O_9883
To whom it may concern We write to advise that we support the Option B Local Plan and strongly oppose any development not covered by that option. The contents of the letter below fully express our views and would ask that you give them your consideration and support. "I understand that the Government has instigated a review of local plans in order to meet its current housing targets. It is my belief that there are more sustainable solutions to any housing shortage than the building of large developments in under-resourced areas that will irreversibly destroy the environment. For Sandiway and Cuddington, there is an existing and appropriate Local Plan (2015-2030) and the assessments and logic applied when this was drawn up should be retained in any updated version. The existing plan (incorporated into the new Option B) allowed for additional housing on carefully selected sites that makes use of brownfield land. So far 200 homes have been delivered in this small community. Most of which are larger family properties rather than the affordable properties required for first time buyers and those wishing to downsize whilst staying within the village. In this time our only GP Practice was closed against public wishes and there is increasing strain on school places. We have a responsibility to protect and enhance our natural and historic environment rather than to build over it and destroy it forever.   Farmland is going to be increasingly important for the UK’s food security and is gaining growing attention across the UK. According to the National Farmers’ Union, 'the UK has a “criminal” dependence on foreign countries to source some of its food’ and we are no better prepared now than we were before the Pandemic. Good quality agricultural land is going to be increasingly important for our small island particularly in the current unstable geopolitical times we are experiencing. The farm land around Sandiway and Cuddington has been farmed for hundreds of years and still is today. It needs protecting from irreversible destruction at the hands of Developers taking commercial advantage of a short-sighted Government housing strategy.    The government’s own figures show that abandoned and derelict houses across England number c. 720,000. Utilising these empty homes would contribute around 50% of their target whilst ensuring properties become available near established infrastructure. It would also reduce these sites vulnerability to crime and further decline. Regeneration should be the priority for helping housing shortages before farmland and/or small under-resourced communities with limited infrastructure are destroyed forever to bulid properties that in no way address local needs.    Option C identifies Sandiway and Cuddington as offering 'sustainable transport corridors’ which the Government believes would support significant housebuilding. This is a false assertion as our village is only serviced by a small hourly bus service and a small, unreliable train service. Local roads are already carrying too high a volume of traffic and there are no major employment opportunities in the immediate area. Any additional housing around the edges of the village would encourage car usage. This would be disastrous for the environment and safety of our community. If home working is assumed in any plans, then this discounts a) the drive for employers to get their workforce back into the office and b) the school runs by car that will inevitably accompany all housing developments as there are no safe, walkable routes to schools, especially post Year 6.   Local health, education and transport services are already inadequate for the existing village community. Our GP Practice was recently closed and all other local Practices are either rated ‘poor’ in the recent GP Patient Surveys or are already oversubscribed. so only Option B along with urgent attention to health and education services will support a sustainable village going forward. Having considered the three options proposed, I strongly support Option B that recognises the considered strategy within the existing local plan.  If we fail to pay attention to the needs of our existing community and the needs of future generations by supporting food security through farming, primary healthcare needs and environmental protection, we will be heading towards an irreversible disaster."  

Comment

Representation ID: 9454

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9949
All options would lead to significant highway impacts and it does beg the question about whether the Warrington Road can sustain potential growth that relies upon it Given the proximity of Northwich, and the options located there for growth, one does question whether new growth at Cuddington/Sandiway would simply continue to rely upon Northwich and/or be out-commuting to Manchester