Comment

Representation ID: 12113

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Brenda Ladley

CUD05
I&O_12627
I strongly object to the proposal to build houses to the east side of Delamere Park ref: CUD05. For reasons set out below: 1). Where would the entrance to the development be?  The infrastructure isn’t able to accommodate this. Cuddington Lane is too narrow to accommodate more traffic. Norley Road is also narrow with lots of bends and slopes. 2). The Broadband is very slow, so will be even worse with more houses. 3).  The doctors and  dentists are up to capacity,  it is very hard to get an appointment. The schools are almost full and if the proposed development for the rest of Cuddington and Sandiway goes ahead they will be at breaking point.

Comment

Representation ID: 12121

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Gavin

I&O_12635
Local Plan Cuddington and Sandiway The green belt is what helps to make the village what it is, a mix of housing, schools and small business’s mixed in a rural and agricultural setting. To build upon this land in a significant way would have a negative impact on the village. A large increase in population putting strain on existing infrastructure: The local schools are full. No longer a doctor's surgery in the village, despite local efforts to keep Sandiway Surgery. Inadequate bus service. Infrequent train service with little parking at the station. Busy roads. Also environmental negative impacts: Taking away of mature trees and hedgerows destroying habitat and wildlife. Taking away of open space for mental health and enjoyment. Some green belt land is used for agriculture, to feed the nation and ultimately food security. An increase in noise and emissions from traffic along already busy routes,  for example A49, A556, Weaverham Road and Norley Road in the village. The village has sufficient housing after recent new developments and I would like the Local Plan to take this into account.

Comment

Representation ID: 12158

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Phil Sawicki

CUD05
I&O_12672
I have seen and reviewed the CWAC land assessment plan identifying land that may potentially be allocated for building on the east side of Delamere Park, CUD05. I must strongly object to any such proposal as totally unacceptable due to the general unsuitability of roads for such a large increase in traffic in and around the area in question. In addition, there are no footpaths on Norley road or Cuddington lane which make them dangerous to walk along now let alone without further housing development.   I would also question the infrestrcuture of schools, doctors and dentist etc to accommodate such and increase? I request your serious consideration of my concerns and hopfull reversal of any such proposed development plan for this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12163

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Yvonne Gavin

I&O_12677
Also environmental negative impacts: Taking away of mature trees and hedgerows destroying habitat and wildlife Taking away of open space for mental health and enjoyment. Some green belt land is used for agriculture, to feed the nation and ultimately food security Increase in noise and emissions from traffic along already busy routes,  for example A49, A556, Weaverham Road and Norley Road in the village. The village has sufficient housing after recent new developments and I would like the Local Plan to take this into account.

Comment

Representation ID: 12191

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jill Carter

CUD01.CUD04,CUD05
I&O_12705
Please accept this email as my formal objection to any further development in this area. The local infrastructure is inadequate now, services are over subscribed, and inevitable environmental damage would be unforgivable.

Comment

Representation ID: 12205

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Carter

Cud 01, 04, 05
I&O_12719
Please accept this email as my formal objection to any further development in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12219

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Wendy Glendinning

SS 36
I&O_12733
We strongly reject plans for CUD05 Cuddington and Sandiway.  This application relates to CUD05, this proposed development threatens to significantly alter the rural/agricultural land and character of Cuddington and Sandiway. Concerns include increased traffic/road safety, loss of biodiversity, and erosion of our villages rural landscape. This would lead to pressure on infrastructure such as schools services and facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 12231

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Glendinning

SS 36
I&O_12745
We strongly reject plans for CUD05 (Cuddington and Sandiway) Option A is our strong view. This application relates to CUD05, this proposed development threatens to significantly alter the rural/agricultural land and character of Cuddington and Sandiway. Concerns include increased traffic/road safety, loss of biodiversity, and erosion of our villages rural landscape. This would lead to pressure on infrastructure such as schools services and facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 12246

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Greenfield

CUD02 and CUD03
I&O_12760
I wish to provide you with my feedback on the CWAC Local Plan. I am Richard Greenfield and live on Delamere Park, Cuddington. Having looked at all the plans I do not see any need to build on Green Belt land in order to meet housing needs. Green Belt was designed to stop urban sprawl and towns merging. This is still necessary. Protecting nature and providing access to green spaces must be preserve. Given the mental health crisis in this country, having an escape to the countryside is essential. Cheshire is a key farming area and the majority of Green Belt is farm land. Once lost this will never return and food security is already becoming an issue. Building houses on Green Belt does not support stopping climate change.  Specifically I do not support building on Green Belt land around Cuddington. Therefore, if we have to have any new housing around CuddingtonI would prefer Option A - Retain The Green Belt. Therefore building on CUD02 and CUD03. Although this still has issues with the land being primarily green and causing urban sprawl. Whilst Cuddington may have a railway station it is not well served. The trains are hourly and only go to Chester and Stockport. There is no real bus service and non that service Delamere Park.  I also do not understand why developers are consistently allowed to build estates without improving the infrastructure to support them. I hear promises are made by the developers and not followed through, estates appear to be sized in phases to allow them to be below the threshold which would mean they have to develop the infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 12248

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Cooper

I&O_12762
Comments on Development Locations (Map – Orange Blobs) Having reviewed the map of proposed development locations, I wish to comment on specific areas identified by the “orange blobs”: CUD04 - Sandiway West - Forest Road estimated total of 1,335 properties CUD05 - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park total of 1,198 properties I oppose development to both of these areas,  because of the impact on the green belt access for people in the Parish.  The impact from the change to the infrastructure, traffic impact, and pollution. These location are not suitable for development due to both of these areas currently giving access to the Whitegate Way Footpath, Cheshire Cycle Way and Bridleway. CUD04 will border onto The Whitegate Way. It is a well established and a well used path.  The pathway is used by many residents of the whole of the parish for walks, cyclists, runners and competition training, families with children, offering an off road, safe and pollution free pathway with countryside rural views, and tree shaded avenue, running from Waste lane to the Whitegate disused rail station and onto Winsford. In particular, I urge the Council to focus on brownfield regeneration. Avoid encroaching on green belt, consider infrastructure capacity,  protect heritage assets (The Sandstone Trail) as part of its long-term strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 12251

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Yvonne Cooper

I&O_12765
Comments on Development Locations (Map – Orange Blobs) Having reviewed the map of proposed development locations, I wish to comment on specific areas identified by the “orange blobs”: CUD04 - Sandiway West - Forest Road estimated total of 1,335 properties CUD05 - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park total of 1,198 properties I oppose development to both of these areas,  because of the impact on the green belt access for people in the Parish.  The impact from the change to the infrastructure, traffic impact, and pollution. These location are not suitable for development due to both of these areas currently giving access to the Whitegate Way Footpath, Cheshire Cycle Way and Bridleway. CUD04 will border onto The Whitegate Way. It is a well established and a well used path.  The pathway is used by many residents of the whole of the parish for walks, cyclists, runners and competition training, families with children, offering an off road, safe and pollution free pathway with countryside rural views, and tree shaded avenue, running from Waste lane to the Whitegate disused rail station and onto Winsford. In particular, I urge the Council to focus on brownfield regeneration. Avoid encroaching on green belt, consider infrastructure capacity,  protect heritage assets (The Sandstone Trail) as part of its long-term strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 12282

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kerry Broadbent

I&O_12796
I live at XXX and have done for the last 23 years. I have given my attention to the possible options to change the current local plan. I am writing to object to any further significant housing developments for Cuddington and Sandiway.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12284

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Figueroa-Wilkes

CUD02 and CUD03
I&O_12798
As a Resident of Cuddington and Sandiway, I would like you to consider Option A, retention of Greenbelt (options Cud02 Cud 03) Reasons for this consideration Cuddington/Sandiway's infrastructure is not commensurate to rapid expansion of housing and population.  - Northern Rail provision of train services to Cuddington the rail station is insufficient to provide stable and regular commuting. This was proven during the pandemic and the subsequent years of railway strikes. As someone who does not drive, I found it incredibly difficult to commute to my workplace in Manchester. There are simply no viable bus routes in this village to enable movement to neighbouring areas for clinical/dental appointments. - It is flood prone on the A49, there are huge swathes of impassable roads during heavy downpours, most of the other roads in the village are small country lanes. The current road infrastructure is under maintained, narrow and flood easily, this cannot accommodate additional traffic e.g., Weaverham Road, School Lane, Dalefords Lane, and A556 already suffer congestion, speeding, and accident risks. Public transport does not exist, making the scheme car-dependent - there is a lack of safe pedestrian and cycling paths for children and adult pedestrians throughout the village - it will cause permanent loss of green space and significantly change the characteristics of  the village. - there is a need to safeguard productive farmland for food security since Brexit.  - brownfield sites exist (e.g., Northwich market site) and have not been developed as a priority - there is inadequate Health and Education  facilities to sustain a significant population increase, there is currently no NHS GP/dentist practice based in the village and the neighbouring facilities are already oversubscribed to the point of great difficulty to get emergency appointments. The schools are already at or near capacity. - the  current developments in the village are still not completed within good standard. The Eden Grange -Taylor Wimpey site commenced in 2016 is still unfinished with unadopted roads (Council will not) and poor drainage installation that is taking over 8 years to fix!!  Any promises for delivering sustainable and quality building sites have not been delivered by the major building companies. - environmental and biodiversity provisions have not been clearly outlined. As someone with respiratory issues, I moved to the area for better air quality and less pollution, that will be compromised as the area will go from small village to large housing suburban sprawl.  - large scale developments will heavily impact on dust, noise, light and traffic pollution.   - there will be additional impact on crime and safety. I would appreciate your considerations of the points made, the plan was received by us with considerable distress. Please confirm receipt of this email.

Comment

Representation ID: 12288

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Harry Broadbent

I&O_12802
Being a resident of Sandiway I write to object to any further significant housing developments for Cuddington & Sandiway.

Comment

Representation ID: 12331

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Whiteley

I&O_12845
As a resident of Cuddington in Cheshire I wish to provide the following feedback as a contribution to the CWaC Local Plan Issues & Options process. The county of Cheshire has a unique character and the Northwich area has been my home for approaching 40 years. In that time a great deal of urban and suburban growth has occurred, much of which has made more productive use of underused agricultural land and regenerated former commercial and industrial sites. I am a supporter of sensitive and proportionate development and feel passionately that this can be accommodated whilst retaining the essentially rural character of Cheshire. The Northwich and Winsford area offers a number of previously-developed brownfield site opportunities, both ex-industrial locations beyond the urban hubs, and ex-commercial, often close to or indeed within the town centres. Whilst such sites may admittedly present some challenges in their remediation and repurposing, in my opinion they must be considered as the first options for future development. The successful Winnington Village to the north of Northwich is a good example of this. With specific reference to the local plan being created for Cuddington & Sandiway, it is vital that any expansion of these small communities is proportionate, avoids further amalgamation of discrete settlements and thereby respects existing settlement boundaries, whilst also protecting the highly productive agricultural land which surrounds them. Retaining the boundaries of the villages of Cheshire is crucial in maintaining the character of the county and protecting their attractiveness as peaceful, enjoyable places to live. For this reason I feel very strongly that Cuddington & Sandiway should never be allowed to merge with adjacent villages such as Weaverham, and that Cuddington itself must not coalesce with the rural community of Delamere Park. Cuddington benefits from a railway station although those benefits are limited due to the relative infrequency of the train service and the very limited range of destinations offered (only Manchester and selected intermediate points to the east, and Chester and intermediate stations to the west). Cuddington's capacity as a Service Centre is therefore limited and any plans for expansion must include a realistic plan for a proportionate increase in rail capacity, range of destinations and car parking. The longstanding 'Green Belt' policy employed across the county, has delivered highly effective protection for the prized agricultural land with which Cheshire is synonymous, and avoided the merging of settlements due to ribbon development along communication routes. This highly successful policy must not be abandoned. For the above reasons my view of the Local Plan options for Cuddington and Sandiway is that Option A is the strong preference   If that, coupled with the exploitation of options elsewhere in the borough provides insufficient capacity, then Option B is the next best solution, as long as it ensures development is concentrated on the non-green belt areas of CUD01, CUD02 in the first instance , with CUD01 & CUD04 allocated for any essential, proportionate additional development. Such development must also address the limitations of rail connectivity, parking, retail options, education and healthcare facilities, fast broadband availability and the capacity of the already-heavily trafficked A49 between Weaverham and its junctions with the A556. Any development in CUD05 is highly undesirable and therefore to be avoided because it would involve the repurposing of productive and well-utilised agricultural land, as well as risking the coalescence of Cuddington with Delamere Park. Option C  is too wide-ranging, potentially fragmented and damaging to the rural nature of Cuddington & Sandiway and must therefore be avoided . I hope these deeply-held and sincere views will be taken into consideration as part of this undoubtedly long and challenging planning process.

Comment

Representation ID: 12335

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr James Doerr

I&O_12849
I am a resident of Delamere park and I object to the below plans for new properties to be built. 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  

Comment

Representation ID: 12358

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roxana Zomorrody

I&O_12874
Please consider this email as my objection to any further significant housing developments for Sandiway and Cuddington.  As a resident of this village, as none of the proposed options within the new local plan protect the open countryside, our green spaces and the character of the village, alongside the village being already overdeveloped for the current services, I object to all 3 options.

Comment

Representation ID: 12391

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Britton

I&O_12908
With reference to the above consultation, I would like to register my wish to protect the green belt and open countryside from further building development, especially in relation to the village of Cuddington and Sandiway. I object specifically to any further significant housing developments in and around Cuddington and Sandiway.

Comment

Representation ID: 12414

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Katie Emily Britton

I&O_12931
With reference to the above consultation, I would like to register my wish to protect the green belt and open countryside from further building development, especially in relation to the village of Sandiway and Cuddington.  I object specifically to any further significant housing developments in and around  Sandiway and Cuddington. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12423

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Britton

I&O_12940
With reference to the above consultation, I would like to register my wish to protect the green belt and open countryside from further building development, especially in relation to the village of Sandiway and Cuddington.  I object specifically to any further significant housing developments in and around  Sandiway and Cuddington. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12426

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carol Bird

I&O_12943
I wish to register my objection to option B and option C of the proposed development plan, on the grounds that there is no adequate infrastructure existing in the village to accommodate such builds. My concerns are shown below:- 1. There is only a handful of shops in the village and all parking is difficult, 2. We have no doctors, only one dentists, which is a private practice. There are only two schools that serve the village and would soon become over subscribed. Our roads are country roads which could not cope, and would probably become dangerous, with the influx of all the extra traffic involved in occupancies. One proposed area CUDO5 runs into Cuddington Vale, an area of beauty and should be protected at all costs. Building would cause chaos on the roads for the duration of the build, as stated previously these are all narrow, bending roads, hardly suitable for buses and lorries which pass through at the present time.  6,  Finally I think Sandiway and Cuddington have already  given over enough land in previous years to builders. I hope these points will be taken on board.

Comment

Representation ID: 12441

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carol and Alan Orme

I&O_12958
I would like to raise my objection regarding the latest planning policy for Cuddington and Sandiway area. As a resident of Cuddington I am very concerned regarding the proposed planning policy. Not only is this a green belt but also we are surrounded by valuable agricultural land. Land that is here to feed our nation. The infrastructure of our area could not cope with an increase in population.  We may have a rural train station but little or no bus service at all. Our roads are country lanes and couldn’t cope with an increase in traffic which would be inevitable. People need doctors, dentist, schools, hospitals, nurseries and shops, these facilities are already stretched, with some people already travelling a distance to find these services. And it is for these reasons I object to proposed planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 12469

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Schofield

I&O_12986
Ref: CUD01, CUD02, CUD03, CUD04, CUD05 I write in relation to the Cheshire West and Chester council proposals to build large scale housing developments in the locality of Cuddington and Sandiway totalling 3966 dwellings. I wish to formally register my objection to the proposals. Such developments, if allowed to proceed, will put immeasurable pressure on the already over subscribed schools and medical facilities. The local residents pay a premium to live in the countryside to enjoy green belt spaces, outdoor pursuits, reduced road pollution, reduced noise pollution and reduced crime rates. Such a significant increase to the population of the villages of Cuddington and Sandiway will inevitably see an increase in crime and pollution rates and may devalue the existing properties by depriving them of their village status. Forest Road in particular is the only through road to provide access to the rail links and for commuters. That road was recently subject to road works and caused significant delays and would certainly not support the presence of such a significant development to that proposed in CUD04. It would in fact be catastrophic to local residents and would be gridlocked. It is of grave concern that the proposals could see result in the loss of significant agricultural and Green Belt land. The "housing need" figures imposed by Government are excessive. I wish to make the following further observations about the proposed developments: the unjustified nature of the housing target, which is at a much higher level than household growth projections for the Borough published by the Office for National Statistics. the need to protect Green Belt land for the longer term and focus new development on brownfield land eg vacant industrial land in existing settlements. the need to protect productive agricultural land particularly land which is graded 1, 2 or 3А ("Best and Most Versatile"). the need to protect Cheshire's precious landscapes both for aesthetic reasons and as areas where people can walk, ride and get access to nature. the need to preserve local nature, light and noise pollution the impact on road congestion, the resulting pollution and impact on commuters the increase in crime rates  

Comment

Representation ID: 12470

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nicola McKendrick

I&O_12987
I am a resident of Cuddington and Sandiway, and I can see there are 3 options on which you seek feedback for housebuilding in the next Plan.  They are listed as Options A, B,or C. All options contravene the current Neighbourhood Plan which was agreed via a more than 90% in favour some 5 years ago.  Several planning applications have sought to test this Plan and each have failed at the Planning Inspectorate.  Therefore I would object to any of these options being viable, since they are not specific enough to be designated by road names etc, certainly the blobs marked as CUD 02 and CUD 03 significantly contravene the Neighbourhood Plan which the community voted for. Cuddington and Sandiway have already delivered 2 major housing developments in recent years, and lost the fight to retain a Doctors surgery, therefore I consider the infrastructure to be already overloaded and any further developments would also pose additional road safety concerns. The community need more specific details about any proposal for inclusion in the Borough Plan in order to make informed representation.

Comment

Representation ID: 12482

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David ONeill

I&O_12999
Ref: CUD01, CUD02, CUD03, CUD04, CUD05 I write in relation to the Cheshire West and Chester council proposals to build large scale housing developments in the locality of Cuddington and Sandiway totalling 3966 dwellings. I wish to formally register my objection to the proposals. Such developments, if allowed to proceed, will put immeasurable pressure on the already over subscribed schools and medical facilities. The local residents pay a premium to live in the countryside to enjoy green belt spaces, outdoor pursuits, reduced road pollution, reduced noise pollution and reduced crime rates. Such a significant increase to the population of the villages of Cuddington and Sandiway will inevitably see an increase in crime and pollution rates and may devalue the existing properties by depriving them of their village status.  Forest Road in particular is the only through road to provide access to the rail links and for commuters. That road was recently subject to road works and caused significant delays and would certainly not support the presence of such a significant development to that proposed in CUD04. It would in fact be catastrophic to local residents and would be gridlocked.  It is of grave concern that the proposals could see result in the loss of significant agricultural and Green Belt land. The "housing need" figures imposed by Government are excessive. I wish to make the following further observations about the proposed developments: • the unjustified nature of the housing target, which is at a much higher level than household growth projections for the Borough published by the Office for National Statistics. • the need to protect Green Belt land for the longer term and focus new development on brownfield land eg vacant industrial land in existing settlements. • the need to protect productive agricultural land particularly land which is graded 1, 2 or 3А ("Best and Most Versatile"). • the need to protect Cheshire's precious landscapes both for aesthetic reasons and as areas where people can walk, ride and get access to nature. • the need to preserve local nature, light and noise pollution • the impact on road congestion, the resulting pollution and impact on commuters  • the increase in crime rates 

Comment

Representation ID: 12620

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Armour

I&O_13137
I write with a particular view regarding the development options for Cuddington and Sandiway. I would like to express my support for Option A - Retain the greenbelt for Cuddington and Sandiway .  Also, I would like to object strongly to Option C, especially as, despite the presence of a small railway station, there are very poor transport links here. Living in this parish, I would not like to see what should be protected Greenbelt land touched by further development. I also would not like a disproportionate number of houses to be built in Cuddington and Sandiway, according to its size against other communities in CWAC. I believe such development as proposed in your options for this area, would be detrimental to the current distinct character of this rural community, the lifestyle it presently provides and most of all to the natural countryside and wildlife that is sustained here, whose importance to our country's survival as a whole becomes ever more clear.    I would hope that across CWAC, development should align with the facilities and major infrastructure already here and only be placed where it is of benefit to both the established communities and people looking for housing in the future. The character of the county should be protected, and the greenbelt has already been determined as the best way to do that. The urban areas are where development should be placed if needed, to make the most fiscally of what has already been built and give people lives of convenience. Northwich could actually benefit from an increased population to improve the vitality of the shopping centre, where many excellent spaces already purpose built for retail, business and leisure are empty and in need of a boost to the local economy. Houses are best built where there is easy access to work, schools, doctors, leisure, larger roads and larger stations.   Marbury country park is central too. This is a town in need of invigoration, with minimal costs required for service provision, which may otherwise languish. Meanwhile the countryside is in dire need of protection from human activity.

Comment

Representation ID: 12631

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Armour

I&O_13148
Of the three options presented, the one which I most strongly support  for Cuddington & Sandiway is Option A, retaining the Green Belt .  It is my view that Green Belt land is sacrosanct, these areas originally having been delineated to prevent urban sprawl, protect natural habitats (& wildlife corridors) and to retain the character of rural areas.   Development should be incremental and focused on areas where infrastructure and services are already in place. I also strongly object to the disproportionate development of rural areas on the basis of arbitrary factors such as the presence of rail stations and bus routes.  Option C allows for the development in Cuddington & Sandiway of up to 1,500 homes on what is today mostly agricultural land. This is a rural area.  The demand for buses and trains for commuting, and in general, is low or these services would be better provisioned and serve a greater number of destinations.  A significant proportion of workers use the A49 to commute for work.  This single carriageway "A" road already has several choke points, in either direction, with the present number of residents.  One can only imagine how difficult daily commutes would become if another 1,500 households were added to the area.  I would also hope that sufficient scrutiny is given by the CWAC planning authorities to any planning applications put before them.  Time and again we see housing estates allowed to be built in a way which best serves the interests of developers.   The approval of any planning applications should be contingent upon minimising the impact to existing residents and the natural environment and the provision of new infrastructure and facilities where necessary. To reiterate, I am strongly in favour of Option A  for Cuddington & Sandiway.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12648

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Haynes

I&O_13165
Firstly, of the proposal areas (C01-C05) I would strongly object to any of the Green Belt areas being used for any development, which would mean supporting the option ‘A’ proposal. The reasons for this are straightforward, the Green Belt land should be protected as much as possible and this clearly isn’t an exceptional circumstance as described in NPFF - there are sufficient non Green Belt areas in the proposal to accommodate the requirements.  More specifically, any Green Belt development in the proposal would cause substantial harm to the visual and spatial openness of the area within the Green Belt (particularly the C05 area which has no Previously Developed Land) - something the NPPF clearly defines as inappropriate development. I would like to be given the opportunity to expand on this if it should prove necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 12706

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gilly Carter

I&O_13224
I am emailing you in response to the new plan which Cheshire West is preparing to deal with up to 1900 new properties each year set by the Government.  I live in Cuddington and am deeply concerned with the number of properties that could potentially be built in our area.  In recent years we have had several new developments in our area.  Some of which are still having infrastructure problems.   There have been no extra amenities put in place.  Infact our local surgery was closed despite growing numbers.  I would like to register my objection to more building  in this area. This area is surrounded with green belt and is very beautiful and full of wildlife.  This should be protected for generations to come. If, however, it is decided that there is to be development, I ask that the green belt is protected and that the local infrastructure is improved considerably.  I feel this only leaves option A as a possibility. Thank you.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12731

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lynn Leyland

I&O_13249
Following our meeting with Gillian Edwards last night I wanted to express my objections to the planning proposals for Sandiway and Cuddington. Cuddington, in particular, is a small village surrounded by farmland in a beautiful part of Cheshire. It does not have the necessary amenities to support the proposed number of houses. There are no local doctor surgeries and not enough school places for children of all ages. The road network is already too busy with congestion at peak times and additional vehicles will add to the problem. There is a rail station but currently only one train per hour to Manchester and Chester. To support a larger population will require additional funding and better railway infrastructure costing millions and great upheaval to the local community. Please add my comments to the "Objections" file.