Comment

Representation ID: 9589

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10085
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: 9703

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10199
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: 9825

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10322
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: 9960

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Gurney-Smith

CUD01-05
I&O_10457
Dear Sir/Madam CUD01 Cuddington North - East of Warrington Road estimated total of 323 properties CUD02 - Sandiway South - Dalefords Lane estimated total of 923 properties CUD03 - Sandiway South - south of Chester Road estimated total of 187 properties (mixed use) CUD04 - Sandiway West - Forest Road estimated total of 1,335 properties CUD05 - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park total of 1,198 properties I’m not entirely sure how to respond to the consultation as I am away on holiday and I have only recently seen a Facebook post on the above. It is recommended that I email you. I should like to express my grave concerns regarding proposed potential development in the villages of Cuddington and Sandiway. Regardless of the merits, the existing infrastructure simply cannot cope with existing development, let alone additional. The A49/A556 road junction is a bottleneck. Pedestrians crossing to Blakemere take their lives in their hands without a dedicated crossing. Traffic at the A556 junction with Dalefords Lane causes another bottleneck, as does the traffic interchange at the station. The Weaverham Road and School lane traffic circulation is also a cause for great concern. The roads simply cannot cope with additional traffic. The village has lost its doctors surgery, the existing schools could not facilitate additional pupils. The railway line between Chester and Manchester does not have the capacity or frequency to cater for commuters. Nor is there adequate parking at the station or nearby. In short, the location is utterly unequipped to cope with a fraction of the additional new build identified. Whilst I accept additional housing in the region is required, it would make far more sense to identify a former airfield or large disused industrial site close to the motorway (M56) to build a New Town with all of the necessary facilities, designed to work together in harmony, rather than cobble together sites in localities that cannot currently cope with unfulfilled promises of community facilities we all know the builders will find a way not to honour. Yours

Comment

Representation ID: 10088

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: R E, S, E and T Smith, Taylor, Cox and Carter

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10585
As stated above, land within CUD04 growth area is being promoted for residential development. The land can make a significant contribution to the local housing needs of Cuddington and Sandiway as well as the wider needs of CW&C. While the other growth areas could potentially also contribute to housing delivery, it is considered that CUD04 presents the most logical and sustainable location to deliver homes due to its proximity to the rail station and existing local facilities and services of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 10092

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: R E, S, E and T Smith, Taylor, Cox and Carter

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10589
Summary and Conclusion Savills is instructed by the Landowners to submit representations on the Issues and Options draft of the New Local Plan for Cheshire West and Chester. Land at Forest Road, Sandiway is promoted to be included as a housing allocation within the New Local Plan. These representations make reference to this land in order to illustrate wider points in relation to the production of the New Local Plan. In general the Council is encouraged to be ambitious in terms of addressing the current housing crisis by delivering the homes it needs in the right places. In terms of housing specifically, much of this is dependent on ensuring the right requirement, apportioning this housing to the right general locations, and ensuring that the most sustainable sites are allocated for delivery. These representations have stated a suitable course for the new Local Plan to follow. Land at Forest Road, Sandiway is identified as a potential growth area (CUD04 – Sandiway West) and represents an excellent opportunity to deliver market and affordable housing and community uses, in a highly sustainable location. It follows that the Site should be included in the New Local Plan as a standalone housing allocation, or as part of a wider allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 10305

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Taylor MRTPI (ret)

I&O_10802
Cuddington and Sandiway Growth Options. The overall level of potential development outlined for this settlement under Option C, in particular, would be very damaging environmentally and far exceed the current capacity. I strongly oppose the potential level of development under this option and have reservations about the impact of Option B, as local services and infrastructure are limited (even compared with neighbouring Weaverham).  CUD05, in particular, would potentially result in the merging of two distinct “villages”, closing a locally important settlement gap, and the development of an area of high local landscape value, poor local infrastructure and difficult, hilly terrain. I strongly oppose the removal of CUD05 from the Green Belt. A small part of CUD01 could have potential in terms of proximity to local, albeit limited,  services.  Part of CUD04 alongside the A49 could also provide an opportunity for limited sustainable development. CUD02 and CUD03 obviously have the advantage of not requiring a Green Belt removal but are similarly constrained by local landscape impacts.  See also my comments about the dangers of coalescence of Cuddington and Sandiway with the western areas of “greater Northwich”. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10516

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Holliman

I&O_11014
To whom it may concern I have lived in this area for most of my 70 years. We know that it is a very special area with health giving green spaces and we are lucky to live here HOWEVER  the trains are insufficient, even when running as per the timetable (which can be rare) the buses are insufficient; a very limited service, none at the weekends our health suffers as there are insufficient medical staff, especially as people get old the roads are too busy and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians  there are no cycle paths it is noisy all the time due to heavy traffic on the roads there is insufficient drainage the network coverage is weak primary schools are getting too full to ensure adequate education. the local secondary school should be accessible by bike but the roads are too busy and dangerous the area already depends on volunteers to run community projects such as the Ark café, scouts and the youth club. UPSET THESE PEOPLE AT YOUR PERIL. Adding more users to an already struggling infrastructure is sheer madness especially when we have empty town centres where housing would bring life and commercial benefits. I look forward to your response and receiving confirmation of receipt of this email Regards

Comment

Representation ID: 10869

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Keeley Ewart-Smith

I&O_11367
I am writing as a local resident of Cuddington to object to the proposed significant housing expansion in the local area.     The proposed development sites will significantly expand what is a small village of Cuddington and Sandiway. This will bring significant impact with noise, traffic and disruption. The infrastructure of our small village is not scaled to deal with such a significant expansion of so many houses. The village has already seen the addition of recent developments at the old Yogurt Factory site Eden Vale in Cuddington as well Forest Edge by the Shell garage, both are large housing developments and neither of which added additional amenities to support the number of residents now living in the area.  Whilst the population of Cuddington and Sandiway grew by 16% between 2011 and 2021, the housing stock grew by 19% in the same period and therefore the area is described as having a surplus of housing need. There are also a huge number of recent developments up the road in Hartford meaning that people have much choice in housing availability. 

Comment

Representation ID: 10910

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Snelgrove

I&O_11408
I am emailing regarding the proposed planning applications for Housing developments in the Cuddington & Sandiway areas. The total amount of proposed New properties amounts to 3,966,which is a massive amount of new Housing in a fairly  small area. The traffic is already  a nightmare in a morning on the A49! And I'm sure the infrastructure  can't  support  all the new traffic that would be created. Of course new properties need to be built,but this amount is excessive in such a small area and I sincerely hope  that this amount  of properties won't go ahead.

Comment

Representation ID: 10912

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Hatfield

CUD05
I&O_11410
I would like to express my views on the Local Plan proposals : I feel strongly that Option A Retain The Green Belt is by far the best option. My reasons for this are :  - the roads around the CUD05 option to the East of Delamere Park are not suitable for additional traffic. For example Norley Road, Cuddington Lane, Mill Lane and Barrastitch Lane all have single track stretches where there is not space for two cars to pass. Furthermore there is no scope to widen these roads. - it is unsafe for pedestrians to walk from Delamere Park to Cuddington & Sandiway. For example there are no footpaths that lead all the way from Cuddington station to Delamere Park. This makes walking locally very dangerous. - I do not believe that the existence of the station at Cuddington should lead to Cuddington & Sandiway being considered as part of Option C Sustainable Transport Corridors. The station only serves the Chester to Manchester line, infrequently and with long journey times. Bus services are similarly sparse. - I believe we should endeavour to preserve the Green Belt in order to maintain the appeal and character of our villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 10914

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Hatfield

I&O_11412
I am writing about my concern for the development that is being considered in Cuddington. (Cud 05). This area of land is green belt and I feel that it is important to maintain areas of green belt land. Also there are numerous problems associated with choosing this area for development . The road network (Mill Lane, Cuddington Lane and Barrastitch Lane) are not fit to accommodate these new houses, the roads are single track and often causes problems with cars finding it impossible to pass and reversing is unsafe. There is no pathway from this area into Cuddington, the shops or the station. The local schools would not be able to accommodate the extra children these houses would necessitate. The infra structure in this area would not be able to support another new development in this area. The station at Cuddington only has links to Chester and Manchester and the service is sparse and journey times are long, it certainly isn’t a transport hub. I do believe it is important to maintain areas of green belt to preserve the character of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 11067

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Evelyn Scott

CUD01-CUD05
I&O_11565
I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Evelyn Scott, of [redacted], to formally object to some of the options (CUD01 to CUD05) proposed in the new local plan as they effect this area. Please understand we recognise the need for additional housing here and across the borough and do not want to pull up the draw bridge. However, we are concerned that the greenbelt be preserved as much as possible that would rule out all but option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11138

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Buckley

Cuddington and Sandiway
I&O_11636
I am objecting to the proposed plans for building nearly 4,000: new homes (probably nearer 1,500 in truth), in the above area.  The infrastructure is not in place for so many new homes. Yes, we have a station but in reality most residents use cars, which would amount to up to 3,000 extra vehicles using our inadequate road system, plus the pollution this would cause.  There is very limited parking at the station anyway. There are not enough schools, doctors or dentists to accommodate the increase in population. Hospitals are another concern as they are already understaffed due to a lack of money in the NHS.   Having spent 10  hours recently in A & E, this is a major concern.   This Government has promised something which, in my opinion, is undeliverable.  Where are the trades people and the building materials coming from?  What will be the cost and who will be able to afford these new properties?   The implications are far reaching.  I know some new homes are required, but the scale of these proposals is totally unacceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 11229

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ella Magnuszewska

CUD01, CUD04, CUD05
I&O_11727
Potential growth areas CUD01, CUD04 and especially CUD05 should not be taken out of the Green Belt for development.  Whilst all of these have some boundaries with the A49 much of these areas, especially CUD05, are surrounded and crossed by typical small Cheshire lanes which were not designed for intense traffic. Cuddington railway station is not easily accessed by pedestrians on safe pavements, indeed almost none of the pedestrian routes from area CUD05 have any pavements at all.  I hope you will take my views into consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 11251

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alan Shaw

CUD05, CUD01 and CUD04
I&O_11749
Potential growth areas CUD01, CUD04 and especially CUD05 should not be taken out of the Green Belt for development.  Whilst all of these have some boundaries with the A49 much of these areas, especially CUD05, are surrounded and crossed by typical small Cheshire lanes which were not designed for intense traffic. Cuddington railway station is not easily accessed by pedestrians on safe pavements, indeed almost none of the pedestrian routes from area CUD05 have any pavements at all.

Comment

Representation ID: 11280

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Garry Austin

I&O_11778
Planning around Delamere Park/Cuddington I strongly object to any Development, too many reasons to list here.

Comment

Representation ID: 11536

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12034
The adopted Neighbourhood Plan emphasises that only small-scale development in stipulated areas should be permitted.

Comment

Representation ID: 11805

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Rose

I&O_12303
I would formally like to raise my objection to the plan, especially the option's which propose development of green belt  land. Cuddington and Sandiway do not have the roads, doctor's or school's to cope with the amount of extra people or cars the new housing developments would bring. Furthermore, the options which propose development on green belt would also cause irreparable damage to the countryside and wildlife. In my opinion, all those responsible for devising this plan need to have a serious rethink, if indeed any thought has actually gone into it all, because, to me, it looks like the options have been chosen by sticking a pin in a map.

Comment

Representation ID: 11824

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susannah Summers-Cooke

CUD01
I&O_12322
CUD01 Cuddington North - East of Warrington Road estimated total of 323 properties This will significantly effect the lovely walk that connects Moorlands Avenue to Smithy Lane and the atmosphere of Smithy Lane which is currently a quiet walk for families with dogs, runners to train on and a safe cycle route through to Warrington Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 11825

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susannah Summers-Cooke

CUD02
I&O_12323
CUD02 - Sandiway South - Dalefords Lane estimated total of 923 properties If this area does include plans for building on the old sand quarry area this will mean the loss of a really popular area for families to walk their dogs and to go sledging in the winter. Now that we have lost a significant part of Kennel Woods due to it being fenced off and used for storage of large plastic containers and the remains of the seasonal Xmas/Halloween displays (wooden structures etc) that just make the woodland feel very scruffy and not natural, the quarry is even more popular.

Comment

Representation ID: 11826

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susannah Summers-Cooke

CUD03
I&O_12324
CUD03 - Sandiway South - south of Chester Road estimated total of 187 properties (mixed use) The 2 A roads that border this area are already really very busy and Kennel Lane is a valuable asset as its a quiet local lane for families, cyclist and runners to gain access to the woods etc to walk and also to go through to the Whitegate Way. If this lane were to be used for any access then this would make it unsafe and the community would loose a valuable recreation facility. People cm from miles during covid to park and walk dogs etc. Also the junction of Kennel Lane with the A556 is a difficult one already and using it for housing access would be unsafe.

Comment

Representation ID: 11827

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susannah Summers-Cooke

CUD04
I&O_12325
CUD04 - Sandiway West - Forest Road estimated total of 1,335 properties Building in this area would significantly effect the 2 rights of way from Warrington Road to Waste Lane. These allow residents mindful access to Waste Lane/Whitegate Way etc. Also building on the area immediately adjacent to the Whitegate Way would significantly change the feel of the area and also effect wildlife. Its currently a haven from everything from buzzards to adders. Access would have to be on the busy A556 or the busy A49 creating even more delays and frustration for local traffic and commuters to Chester/North Wales/Manchester/Warrington/Nantwich/Whitchurch etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 11828

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susannah Summers-Cooke

CUD05
I&O_12326
CUD05 - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park total of 1,198 properties Building in this area would ruin a beautiful part of our local cheshire countryside with its lovely quiet lanes, great footpaths and be a major loss to the stuff that makes Sandiway and Cuddington an attractive village. This includes the lovely walk from Waste Lane past the fishing lake to Mill Lane. Finally building all these houses and connecting the village to Delamere Park would completely change Sandiway and Cuddington from a rural village to a commuter centre. Combine this with all the developments around Hartford and Weaverham and eventually all 3 will effectively merge into one large commuter are. Currently there is clear demarcation between the 3 separate communities unlike other areas of Cheshire e.g. Willaston, Wistaton, Wistaton Green and Wollstanwood near Crewe.

Comment

Representation ID: 11847

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Brown

CUD01, CUD02, CUD04, CUD 05
I&O_12346
Further to my earlier email (text below). I have now had a chance to further review the areas of land covered by the proposed areas and it appears that a significant amount of this land is unsuitable for building.    CUD01 The significant feature here is a steep valley in the centre of the area. Also the old railway bridge on Smithy Lane is unlikely to be rated for significant traffic.   CUD02 The majority of the S/W quadrant is an old sand quarry with steep sides and the base is flooded with a large expanse of water. The only access for the S/E quadrant is the busy Dalefords Lane which is a narrow lane with a 40 mph speed limit.   CUD04 A lot of this area is privately owned  and includes woodland and bogland. The other area is steep farmland with pools, streams etc.   CUD05 Has anyone looked at an OS map? The whole area pretty much comprises of a steep sided valley with fishing pools and a large stream at the bottom.   The only feasible areas for building appear to be the fields opposite the Blue cap pub.   Initial email CUD01 Cuddington North - East of Warrington Road estimated total of 323 properties This will significantly effect the lovely walk that connects Moorlands Avenue to Smithy Lane and the atmosphere of Smithy Lane which is currently a quiet walk for families with dogs, runners to train on and a safe cycle route through to Warrington Road.   CUD02 - Sandiway South - Dalefords Lane estimated total of 923 properties If this area does include plans for building on the old sand quarry area this will mean the loss of a really popular area for families to walk their dogs and to go sledging in the winter. Now that we have lost a significant part of Kennel Woods due to it being fenced off and used for storage of large plastic containers and the remains of the seasonal Xmas/Halloween displays (wooden structures etc) that just make the woodland feel very scruffy and not natural, the quarry is even more popular.   CUD03 - Sandiway South - south of Chester Road estimated total of 187 properties (mixed use) The 2 A roads that border this area are already really very busy and Kennel Lane is a valuable asset as its a quiet local lane for families, cyclist and runners to gain access to the woods etc to walk and also to go through to the Whitegate Way. If this lane were to be used for any access then this would make it unsafe and the community would loose a valuable recreation facility. People cm from miles during covid to park and walk dogs etc. Also the junction of Kennel Lane with the A556 is a difficult one already and using it for housing access would be unsafe.   CUD04 - Sandiway West - Forest Road estimated total of 1,335 properties Building in this area would significantly effect the 2 rights of way from Warrington Road to Waste Lane. These allow residents mindful access to Waste Lane/Whitegate Way etc. Also building on the area immediately adjacent to the Whitegate Way would significantly change the feel of the area and also effect wildlife. Its currently a haven from everything from buzzards to adders. Access would have to be on the busy A556 or the busy A49 creating even more delays and frustration for local traffic and commuters to Chester/North Wales/Manchester/Warrington/Nantwich/Whitchurch etc.   CUD05 - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park total of 1,198 properties Building in this area would ruin a beautiful part of our local cheshire countryside with its lovely quiet lanes, great footpaths and be a major loss to the stuff that makes Sandiway and Cuddington an attractive village. This includes the lovely walk from Waste Lane past the fishing lake to Mill Lane.   Finally building all these houses and connecting the village to Delamere Park would completely change Sandiway and Cuddington from a rural village to a commuter centre. Combine this with all the developments around Hartford and Weaverham and eventually all 3 will effectively merge into one large commuter are. Currently there is clear demarcation between the 3 separate communities unlike other areas of Cheshire e.g. Willaston, Wistaton, Wistaton Green and Wollstanwood near Crewe.  

Comment

Representation ID: 11872

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Houghton

CUD05
I&O_12385
I am raising objections to planning proposals that relate to land adjacent to Delamere Park. It should be noted that I don’t expect these objections to be considered. I am assuming that financial Incentives will take priority over public concerns. Firstly, there are no public walk ways to leave Delamere Park. To walk to public amenities is already a risk. Hence school pupils are provided with transport to schools. These roads are already unsafe for horse riders and cyclists. It should be added that these roads are already poorly maintained and pot holes are a hazard every winter. Further traffic compounds the problem. Secondly, it is already impossible to access any health professionals. They are already have too many patients. This includes GP services and dentists.  To obtain even a driving test in Northwich takes months. We have insufficient infrastructures. Finally there are environmental concerns. Which should be seriously considered when destroying green areas. The need for trees is essential to combat the increase in global warming. This should be factored in. You can not immediately replace what you will destroy. I also have been lead to believe that some of these developments will involve compulsory purchases. Which if correct sounds unnecessary. Especially if the goal is financial. Whilst I understand the need for homes. There is numerous land that can be used for these buildings with out destroying green belts. However, consideration on the infrastructure should also be considered. Thank you for enabling me to object. Like I say, I don’t consider that this will make any difference. Which is another sad reflection on the state of alleged democracy.

Comment

Representation ID: 11891

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robin & Patricia Brownhill

CUD01
I&O_12405
We are residents of Cuddington (Post Code XXX) adjacent to Green Belt area CUD01. We have reviewed the above plan & submit the following views: 1)In recent years there has been extensive new residential development in the Cuddington/Sandiway area, namely Eden Grange & Golden Nook. The local area is at saturation point and cannot accomodate further development. Traffic has increased considerably and parking at local shops impossible at times. 2)Also in recent years there has been exponential residential development in nearby Hartford & Winnington, which should eliminate/reduce any proposal to develop Cuddington/Sandiway. 3) We understand that the presence of a Railway station has influenced the choice of Cuddington for extensive development, presumably to encourage rail commuters to live here. If it was a frequent high speed efficient service this logic works. However the trains on this Chester/Manchester line are  infrequent ( 1 per hour) & slow, tak an hour+ to Manchester so of limited use to workers. In the 23years I have lived here I an aware of 2 people who commuted to work via train. In summary the presence of a train station should not influence proposed housing. 4)Option A - The Green Belt protection is in our opinion important & must be retained, so reluctantly the only areas to be considered as a last resort are CUD 02 & 03. Grey belt areas should be exhausted in the first instance. 5)I understand the local schools have very little spare capacity so would struggle to accomodate new pupils.  6)With regards to CUD01 - the previous plan identified 3 important vistas that must be protected. 7)ditto CUD01 - part of this plot is undulating with a large area under water for most of the year, also steep banking totally unsuitable for construction.  We suspect the cost associated with the major infrastructure and remedial works would be prohibitive for for development  We trust the above will be taken into consideration when deciding that Cuddington/Sandiway has already been fully developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 11929

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Bryan Rees

I&O_12443
Hello, I wish to comment on the proposed Local Plan with regard to the suggested developments in and around Cuddington and Sandiway. 1) I wish to object to any proposal to build on the Green Belt. The Green Belt is there to protect the countryside and keep a separation between settlements. In my view the Council should be searching for Brownfield sites. 2) There are also problems in considering any increase in housing in Cuddington and Sandiway. After the Council approved the plans for the Forest Edge and Eden Grange housing developments, Danebridge Medical Practice closed the GP surgery in the Village. Now, direct public transport access to basic medical facilities is not available for anyone not living close to the Number 82 bus route. The Village needs an accessible GP surgery more than it needs extra housing. There is also likely to be a problem with the number of dental appointments available in the Village and I believe that the Dental Practice will not take on any new NHS patients. There will be problems with parking near the local shops that will in turn lead to greater traffic on the roads to Northwich. There are also likely to be capacity problems at the local schools. The Local Plan also mentions the rail link. I suspect that most people who use that will drive to the station. There is now a fee for parking at the small station car park so I suspect that if any great use is made of the station the adjacent roads will become de facto car parks . The Local Plan suggests that land around the station could be made available for extra car parking but looking at the map of the Village I cannot see any such area of land. If CWAC Council wants to encourage the use of Cuddington station perhaps it should discuss the facilities with Northern Trains. A couple of bus shelters and some arrival boards with speakers and that is it. There are no public toilets at the station and the shelters are inadequate in the coldest weather. The journey time is so lengthy and the facilities so poor that one of my neighbours decided when commuting to Manchester that it was far better to drive to Frodsham station than to go to our local station. Returning to the health issues, I would also like to point out that Leighton Hospital is around 11 miles away from the Village by car and has restricted space for parking. It would take around 2 hours to get there by bus even for those living within easy reach of the Number 82 bus route. Moreover, due to the restricted timetable for the numbers 82 and 31 buses it would be impossible to visit any inpatients by bus on evenings and the weekend. I am of the view that the Village does not have the infrastructure to cope with any new housing developments and I object to all the developments on that basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 12030

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Fish

CUD03, WIN07, WIN06, CUD02
I&O_12544
I object to the specific proposals for Cuddington and Sandiway for a number of pertinent reasons : The volume of development will significantly impact on the transport infrastructure which is already overloaded with traffic activity of all kinds including heavy freight and agricultural vehicles .An example is Dalefords Lane - directly impacted by CUDO3 and also WIN 07 . This is a busy country lane , narrow in places ,used daily by commuter traffic plus other local and other traffic ( eg national delivery vehicles ) alongside visitors to the Whitegate Way and other attractions and anglers using the former gravel and sand pits.It is lined with a mixture of hamlets , farming fields / horse stabling and woodland . The proposal to potentially add 923 properties in CUD03 and 2191 properties in WIN07 is disproportionate, totally disregarding the nature of this local road and is untenable .In addition the topography of the area would make it very challenging to consider any development.That is one reason why the land has remained primarily for farming and horse stabling / fields.  The proposed developments appertaining to , in particular Cuddington and Sandiway and Winsford threaten the character of the countryside and villages with the hamlets of Marton and Cassia Green being squeezed by developments at both ends , risking becoming part of the increasing sprawl of Winsford .The proposal (WIN06) seemingly would integrate the hamlet of Darnhall as a suburb of Winsford .This would be against the principles of the Vision and also against the objectives as set out for the Plan . 3.Cheshire has long prided itself on the quality and size of its arable and non arable community which benefits the whole country .The proposals to develop Cuddington and Sandiway and also Winsford  would remove prime agricultural land which is currently being used to grow food crops . This would appear to go against the Sustainability Development principle of maintaining land for food production , at a time when this country is now-where near being able to feed itself , given it had to . See CUD03 and CUD02 as an example plus WIN06 .  The proposed growth in housing and therefore the population is disproportionate and brings considerable challenges to local community infrastructure needs , which are already struggling . Cuddington and Sandiway have already surpassed its existing Local Plan housing targets and with that comes demand for school places , health facilities ,dentists etc . The local GP surgery closed a few years ago , schools are full and roads are often too busy and are in a very poor state of repair .Other local services are struggling to cope with additional demand as shown in the recent survey on demand pressures and public satisfaction . The proposals ,( not  real options ) will only serve to exacerbate the already very challenging situation,at a time when public finances ,after  over a decade of significant funding reductions , have none or very limited ability to support local service needs. The existing  hourly train service between Chester and Manchester is temperamental and operates with 2 carriage old rolling stock .If the Council wishes to improve it’s green credentials by encouraging communities to use local trains ( as per option 3)  the service needs to improve significantly , as does the  almost inexistent bus service. Adding up to 20,000 properties ( potentially a further 40,000cars) in the Northwich ,Cuddington and Sandiway plus Winsford area will only add to existent  considerable challenges of ‘ Making Cheshire West and Chester a good place to live ‘. In addition , taking Cuddington and Sandiway as a case in point , the demand for utilities from potentially 2500 plus properties will be considerable . Where will supplies such as water and electricity be provided from ?? Ditto every other area and including the mixed development sites . To summarise : I object to all of the 3 ‘options’ so as they affect the areas of Northwich , Cuddington and Sandiway plus Winsford area.In addition the impact on some of the smaller non service centres eg Tarporley seem to be taking disproportionate amounts of development . Where is the evidence that all alternative sites have been fully considered without the need to disfigure local villages and communities ?

Comment

Representation ID: 12104

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Maria Hudson

I&O_12618
I would like to register my objection  to any further significant housing development in Cuddington and Sandiway - I feel the current local plan, under which I understand CWAC exceeds the current quota for development, does not require any further development in areas designated as open countryside.