Comment

Representation ID: 12783

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Greenfield

CUD01
I&O_13301
Hi As a resident of Cuddington, I have major reservations about the proposed local plan that is currently being circulated. First and foremost is the absolute destruction of green belt land within some of the options and the severe detrimental impact on the environment and natural habitats of a multitude of animals. Secondly, there is further impact in current infrastructure, with no current access to local doctors, dentists, schools and bus services in the area. Together with the increase in traffic on the country lanes, this again would significantly impact the environment and people’s welfare. Rush hour increased traffic would be severe, causing huge tailbacks and potential dangerous situations arising, The current rail network from Cuddington to Chester & Manchester is not fit for purpose, with one very slow, small train per hour. As it stands, I object to all proposals but see that Option A, CUD01, would be the option that would resolve some of the issues outlined above.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12799

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Iain Martin

CUD04, CUD05
I&O_13317
CUD04 - Objection Although it has good access to the A49 the proposed size is too large and is probably as big as Sandiway is now. CUD05 - Objection Norley Road is already busy and cannot take more traffic. It’s narrow and has no footpath. Also the fields are very hilly, I’m not sure that’s suitable for housing. I also which to complain about the size of the development. At 1198 propers it’s nearly 3 times the size of the current Delamere Park. I thought the idea was to development brownfield sites and I see many of them dotted around Northwich and Winsford.

Comment

Representation ID: 12807

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kevin and Karen Bryer

I&O_13325
Some of the areas which are highlighted as possible growth areas appear to be on land that looks unsuitable for building anyway, being sloped or hilly and boggy.  Also, some of it is on green belt land, or open farmland.  Why are these being earmarked for potential development, in a rural Cheshire community, rather than land that has been used before, or is in need of redevelopment, or buildings and homes that are unoccupied or abandoned?  There is an abundance of this in places which are already in suburban areas, with more facilities, employment and infrastructure, which will actually enhance those communities, without destroying our remaining green fields and open spaces.  We are lucky in Sandiway/Cuddington to have tracks and footpaths through some of those green spaces to use for walking, running and cycling, which will disappear or simply become alleyways through housing estates with further development. Thank you for your time in reading our thoughts on this issue and we hope they go some way towards helping develop a plan which local residents feel is fair and will enhance and improve their future lives here.

Comment

Representation ID: 12826

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Paul Cunningham

I&O_13344
I would like to note my formal objection to the above mentioned planning developments relating to Sandiway and Cuddington,  particularly those concerning the building of further significant numbers of houses. My objection is based on the fact that any such development will place further pressure on existing infrastructure  and local services. Traffic volumes throughout the village, particularly at key nodal points, are already excessive and the provision of medical and dental services is lacking. In addition the proposed developments threaten the provision of high agricultural land and would also significantly detract from the rural nature of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 12833

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Jackson

I&O_13351
Having reviewed the proposed new local plan I am writing to lodge my objections to any further significant housing developments for Cuddington & Sandiway.  We are a small village without the infrastructure to support a large influx of new residents. The local area is already struggling with schools, dentists, doctors & roads not able to support the growth in local residents. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12857

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Hampson

I&O_13376
I am writing to object to the proposals in the new Local Plan and wish to make it clear that I do not support any further significant housing developments in Cuddington & Sandiway.  Our community already faces challenges with traffic, infrastructure, and the loss of green space. Further large-scale development would place unsustainable pressure on local services and permanently damage the character of the area. For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider the proposals and retain protections for our local green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 12878

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane V Edwards

CUD01, CUD02, CUD03, CUD04, CUD05
I&O_13397
I would like you to know that I object very strongly to the proposed planning on all sites as per below whether or not they are an option: CUD01  - Cuddington North - East of Warrington Road 323 properties CUD 02  - Sandiway South - Dalefords Lane 932 properties CUD03  -Sandiway South - south of Chester Road 187 properties CUD04  - Sandiway West - Forest Road 1,335 properties CUD05  - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park 1,198 properties I could go on at length as to why I object as it is plainly obvious to anybody who lives in this area, that we are already saturated with dwellings, with which the infrastructure cannot cope even now. I would very much like to go into detail further but as I understand this objection has a deadline of today, I am therefore registering my opposition in the strongest possible way that consideration should not be given to any more development in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12898

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Gates

I&O_13417
I am objecting to the plans to build in the Cuddington area.   I have viewed your plans, and while I do not understand all the regulations and processes, I do not think building on farming land and green spaces is a good plan for anyone.   There is increasing evidence of the health benefits of nature & open space for us. There is serious concern about the drop in insects and wildlife, which is increasingly noticeable in this area.   Is there a reason you are not utilising the old ICI site, it is a vast space in Northwich that could be built on.   Building around cuddington puts unreasonable pressure on small roads, very limited local shops. There are very limited local health services that are stretched.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12900

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Cheetham

CUD01, CUD02, CUD03, CUD04, CUD05
I&O_13419
I object to your local plan especially section A Green Belt at Delamere Park 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 There are no infrastructure capable of servicing this quantity of new housing NO DOCTORS, FULL DENTIST FULL SCHOOLS FULL COUNTRY ROADS NO BUS SERVICE POOR TRAIN SERVICE. HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE 

Comment

Representation ID: 12919

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Wendy Gauld

I&O_13438
Cuddington and Sandiway I object to all of the planning proposed. The infrastructure and services are not in place. Our greenbelt land should definitely be saved.

Comment

Representation ID: 12926

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Whiteley

I&O_13445
Cuddington and Sandiway As a resident of the Northwich area for nearly 40 years I have seen a great deal of change in the nature of what is ostensibly a semi-rural community comprising two towns and a number of villages. Whilst I understand and appreciate that housing is needed, I also feel strongly that we are in danger of losing the character of our communities if these villages begin to coalesce and the green belt is lost. Cuddington and Sandiway as a community has limited infrastructure to support an influx of new residents - we have lost our local doctors’ surgery for example, which has already put increased pressure on other surgeries in the practice. Any development would also need to consider the increased pressure on schools and transport links, and how this impacts existing residents. The Green Belt policy is intended to maintain the character of rural communities and, vitally, to protect our agricultural land. Cheshire is renowned as a green county, and this should be protected wherever possible; brownfield sites have been successfully reclaimed in Winnington and Lostock Gralam for example, and I feel strongly that using sites such as these is preferable to destroying essential agricultural land. If development has to occur in our area, I feel that least disruptive to our communities would be Option A - its proximity to the A556 would put less pressure on the village’s road network and maintains the green belt. In my opinion Option C would destroy the nature of our discrete communities, remove vital agricultural land on the green belt setting a precedent for the future; for these reasons I would urge that Option C is NOT considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 12940

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Millar

I&O_13459
Re suitable sites for development, I wish to object most strongly to CUD01 and CUD05 The road network around these proposed sites, are country roads not suitable for extra traffic. They are already dangerous roads for walkers (no pavements), cyclists, and car drivers, particularly when larger vehicles travel on them. We have two small primary schools, an overburdened doctors’ surgery, and a few local shops. This area is not conducive to extensive new house building.

Comment

Representation ID: 12944

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Carter

I&O_13463
I am emailing in connection with the new Local Plan which Cheshire West is preparing to deal with the 1900 extra properties per annum set by Government  I live in Cuddington and am very concerned with the number of properties that could potentially be built in the area, in recent years we have had a number of new developments in the area, but with very little improvement to the infrastructure or local amenities, so in my opinion there should be no more building in the Cuddington area  I also think we must keep the green belt free of housing, not just for us but future generations Having said that, if is deemed necessary that there has to be provision for new housing in the area, then it should definitely NOT be on green belt land, which means that Option A is the only one feasible  I hope you will take my comments on board

Comment

Representation ID: 12950

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Georgina Hulse

I&O_13469
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. No pavements are available on these roads to keep walkers safe from an increase in traffic. 2). The Broadband is very slow, so will be even worse with more houses. It is already difficult to work/complete homework from home due to the poor speeds we have now. 3).  The doctors and  dentists are up to capacity,  it is very hard to get an appointment. Sandiway doctors practice was removed years ago and now we must commute into Northwich to see a doctor. 4) 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. There is only one college now serving Northwich since the removal of the art college and Mid Cheshire College in Hartford (both turned into housing!). Children must travel to Crewe, Nantwich and Warrington to study. 5) Transport system is virtually non-existent in this area.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12975

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Levy

I&O_13494
I wish to lodge my objections to the proposed development  to the above area on the following basis: Impact on the green belt surrounding Delamere Park. The current area is naturally beautiful and any development will inevitably blight the area. 3 Loss of valuable farmland and the potential impact on the food chain. Traffic management: the existing road structure is already inadequate for the needs of the current population. In particular, Norley Road and Cuddington Lane are narrow country roads. Any further development would place an intolerable strain on these roads which would  potentially be dangerous for all road users.  Although Delamere Park is only just over a mile from Cuddington station/village, access to village facilities cannot safely be accessed by pedestrians. There is no footpath /pavement on Norley Road  which is probably too narrow for one to be built. This inevitably means that more vehicles are forced onto the roads. This situation would be made far worse by any development.  The existing infrastructure in the area is already totally inadequate eg shopping facilities, schools, recreational facilities, doctors surgeries etc. (Sandiway doctors surgery has been closed for some years). The nearest hospitals are at least 30 minutes drive away! Inadequate employment opportunities for a larger population. Please may my objections be taken into account. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13022

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin McKendrick

I&O_13541
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.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13053

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Percy

Agent: Susan Jones Consultancy

I&O_13572
The view is taken by Mr and Mrs Percy that quite apart from the issues raised above sites CUD05 and CUD01 should be excluded as potential growth areas. They are not considered suitable for the following reasons: • Fall within the designated Green Belt and beyond the Key Service Centre boundary. • The sites encompass a variety of diKerent landscapes which contribute to the character of this rural area. • The topography in part comprises steep gradients which would be constraining factors in their developability. • Inadequate existing Infrastructure to serve future development on any significant scale. • Partly within the setting of a conservation area (heritage asset). • Includes within their boundary's heritage assets comprising several listed buildings as well as non-designated heritage assets and their setting. • Part is good quality agricultural land (Grade 3). • Not PDL.

Comment

Representation ID: 13063

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Broadbent

I&O_13582
As a Cuddington resident for the last 23 years, I would like to place my objection to any future significant housing developments in Cuddington & Sandiway.

Comment

Representation ID: 13098

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Naomi Sadler

I&O_13617
I am writing to object to the proposals in the new Local Plan and wish to make it clear that I do not support any further significant housing developments in Cuddington & Sandiway.  Our community already faces challenges with traffic, infrastructure, and the loss of green space. Further large-scale development would place unsustainable pressure on local services and permanently damage the character of the area. For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider the proposals and retain protections for our local green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 13101

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Hill

CUD04 and CUD05
I&O_13620
Areas CUD04 and CUD05 are most inappropriate for potential growth as they would lead to the loss of greenbelt, urban sprawl and the loss of local character of the existing green/ sparsely populated areas differentiating Cuddington and  Sandiway from the rural and more dispersed housing surrounding these smaller towns.

Comment

Representation ID: 13183

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Charlie Parker

I&O_13702
Further to the Council’s consultation on the above, I am writing to set out at a high level my concerns and objections to what is being proposed for Winsford Growth Area and the proposals for Cuddington / Sandiway and Tarpoley. Whilst I acknowledge and accept that we as a country face a significant housing shortage and there is a need to build more housing units, I think the proposals show a lack of understanding about the scale and impact of the proposed expansion /growth proposals. In particular, the encroachment into the green belt is in the majority of cases in direct conflict with some of the key underlying principles such as, the protection and sustainability of agricultural land and food growing opportunities. This impacts on a significant number of sites that are currently in active agricultural use as well as, the need to protect local habitats which is contrary to the HRA Assessment. In particular this impacts on many of the proposed sites identified in the Winsford growth plans and Housing sites in Cuddington and Sandiway along with, those in Tarpoley. Whist I think the concept of building alongside and or on Transport corridor routes has a lot of merit, reading the plans as presented to date, these feel very theoretical and don’t reflect some of the actual challenges around existing uses including extinguishment and relocation costs. It feels like someone has just taken a pen to highlight a line for possible future development. The strategic priority to ensure that any future development is supporting increase in local infrastructure and key community facilities is to be welcomed. Yet, the policy has not been fully implemented in delivering recent local plan housing developments. A lack of which has seriously impacted on local road, utility, health, education and community facilities necessary to keep up with the growth in housing numbers. Indeed a very recent example of which is the planning proposals for the Redrow/David Wilson Homes development along Dalesford Lane. In the recent consultation there are no plans for any infrastructure improvements and when pushed the developers just said that they would ‘negotiate with the planners for a commuted sum to be agreed and allocated’. At no point were they interested in talking about the impact on junctions, access points onto the three sites, the impact on the existing infrastructure or, future education and health services. They had no information that they would share on the EIA or TIA work that they had undertaken and the level of affordable housing proposed was lamentable. If you look at your proposals for Cuddington/Sandiway and Tarpoley they all will exacerbate the already creaking local infrastructure issues and impact on the character and historic nature of many of these rural communities. Again, the plans look as if no one has actually gone out and looked at the key sites and thought through the unintended consequences that would potentially undermine, your four key underlying principles for the revised local plan. Significantly more work needs to be undertaken on the draft plans and proposals. The need to consider the numbers involved, housing types and tenure - for example downsizing and affordable housing requirements - the land use and zoning proposals and the implications for sustainability and future infrastructure all need reviewing.

Comment

Representation ID: 13271

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Williams

I&O_13790
I feel it is very important that our villages keep their own identities and sense of character. If too much development takes place in the Green Belt, there is a real risk that Cuddington and Sandiway will gradually merge, losing the individuality that makes them such special places to live.   It is also worth noting that a new housing estate has only recently been built in Cuddington on the former yoghurt factory site, which has already added to local housing provision. Furthermore, all brownfield or unused land should be prioritised for development before any agricultural or Green Belt land is considered.   In addition, I believe the existing Neighbourhood Plan, developed for Cuddington and Sandiway only a few years ago, should be respected and followed. This plan was carefully created with local input and reflects the needs and wishes of residents. It should continue to guide development decisions alongside the Local Plan.   I do appreciate that Option A includes the development of sites CUD02 and CUD03, which seems a more balanced approach, allowing for new housing without putting the Green Belt at risk.   I hope the Council will consider the long-term value of protecting our countryside and continue to uphold the Green Belt in the New Local Plan for Cheshire West and Chester, so that Cuddington and Sandiway can retain their unique character for future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 13323

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Basnett

I&O_13842
I really appreciated Gillian Edwards getting involved with the proposed planning development in the Cuddington area at the Delamere clubhouse on Wednesday 27th August. My name is Stephen Basnett and I have lived in both Cuddinton and Norley for the past 40 years. I opposed the proposed planning and I vote option A to retain the green belt. Building on the green belt will see expensively priced homes that will serve to make developers financially successful but will destroy many of wild areas around where I live. Cuddington is already at over  capacity with limited places at schools, doctors, dentists etc. and should remain a local rural  village as opposed to being developed / transformed into a large built up town. It has already seen major housing development in recent years and it is time to stop developers profiteering from building on the green belt. Thank you for considering my concerns and I trust that the plans will be opposed by CWAC.

Comment

Representation ID: 13502

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Lever

I&O_14021
I do not agree to any of the options.  Below are some of the reasons: The country lanes around the villages would not be able to cope with new estates entrances exiting on to them.  The traffic would also increase. There is no doctors surgery in the village. The train line from Manchester to Chester is very slow and  insufficient for a growing population. It would need to be greatly improved to have an efficient service. Building on Green Belt would spoil the enjoyment and beauty of living here

Comment

Representation ID: 13507

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Keith & Sandra Murray

CUD05
I&O_14026
We strongly object to the scale of proposed development to this small village. Most of the area proposed is prime agricultural land and has been farmed for centuries there is a need to retain this valuable land. The area has extensive sand deposits and is well drained , covering this area with development would need careful drainage management to avoid flooding. The  existing village has limited facilities with no surgery and away from the two main roads only narrow country lanes.  The concept of being near a transport hub is misleading there are no bus services of any significance and the train to Manchester takes over an hour. The CUDD5 is nearest to where we live and we know it quite well , we cant believe that anybody who has picked this area has looked at it physically and looked at the contours of the land. It is hilly farmland with lots of trees , steep contours , and  small brook flowing through it would absolute desecration of the countryside to build there and I would imagine limited in the type of housing because of the foundations required on this type of land.

Comment

Representation ID: 13523

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Eddie

I&O_14042
I am writing to voice my objections against the new CWAC local plan which aims to include the increased housing allocation to 1900 properties per year set by government. The sites identifies are as below: The sites are (please note no roads have been identified , just areas, as documented below): 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 am extremely angry at the thought of building of any kind taking place in any of these areas, particularly Kennel Woods south of the A556. This is an area of natural beauty and serves the community in terms of health, exercise and nature. The village is already struggling with a lack of public services and extremely poor transport links. Development targets in the current plan have already been reached and exceeded. The current local plan is more than adequate to achieve targets set by government without changing the infrastructure of the village. Please could you ensure that my opinion and concerns are included in your consultation and when presenting the draft report to CWAC cabinet next August.

Comment

Representation ID: 13524

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Shirley Turner

I&O_14043
As a resident of Cuddington I wish to lodge my objections to your proposed Options A,B and C for future development as shown marked in orange on your consultation plan. Having had my home in the village almost my entire life I feel quite confident in saying that the village is now already overdeveloped. The addition of considerable housing at the Eden Vale estate and the Golden Nook estate (bounded by the A49 and A556 and the Shell garage) in recent years has put further pressure on the local roads, services and health services in particular. And yes, even the unreliable, at-best-once-an-hour, slow, ancient-rolling-stock train service between Chester and Manchester is unfit to cope with the needs of the existing population, let alone any more people. With regard to the roads, the A49 and A556 are vital to the community, being the only way to exit the village in any direction. But too often now they are also the major relief routes for any troubles on the M6 and M56. And on many weekends, even without motorway problems, the A49 will be backed up as far as Weaverham. I find it hard to match the reality of the highways or train ‘service’, therefore, with your concept of “sustainable transport corridors”. Cuddington is, and always has been, a rural community. It has its own identity. Over the past 60 years the area bounded by the A49, the A556 and just beyond the railway has been filled in with housing. This development has been largely incremental and just about sustainable, and has not intruded upon agricultural land or green belt. The development of the Delamere Park estate was on an old wartime site; the Eden Vale estate was on a brownfield site. Your Options A, B and C all spread over agricultural land, currently used for arable crops and livestock. And in my lifetime these areas have always been farmed, and are today as I write! Your Options also spread over footpaths and areas of green belt land used by local residents for exercise and recreational purposes. The footpaths in particular are part of a larger network feeding onto the Whitegate Way which is visited by tourists and many from further away. There can be no good argument for taking this prime agricultural/ green belt land for housing 1) anyway, and 2) when there are brownfield sites elsewhere. The above are the main reasons why I object to your Options A,B and C and I would urge you to consider changes to your proposed policy and to support this rural community in the way that it wants.

Comment

Representation ID: 13559

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lynne E Smith

I&O_14078
Based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number new houses to Cuddington and Sandiway areas and east of Delamere Park my vote and objection would be as follows: My preference is that all green belt land be kept for agricultural land . However if building is absolutely essential under national plans then I would go for option B- limiting the builds to 500 houses and in line with the old local and neighbourhood development plans. Option C is NOT acceptable as there is no real transport facility that can be relied upon Not even a bus within 3/4 of a mile from our home ,the only trains are 1 per hour from Cuddington station  which is 1 1/4 hour commute to Manchester , and local roads and lanes are already congested . Adding more traffic would create more problems.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13562

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Smith

I&O_14081
I must strongly object to the manner in which the development of over 3861 houses is being pushed under the radar of public opinion. The proposed developments will have a major impact on the villages of Cuddington and Sandiway and will almost double the size of the existing village. Resources and infrastructure are already overstretched within the village, we have an inadequate rail service, no convenient doctors surgery, inadequate sewerage management for the current population of the village without adding this burden. Having only just been made aware of this proposal I consider that all residents be made aware of these proposals and that adequate time be given for proper consultation with residents. The loss of such an amount of greenbelt on the edge of our beautiful community is a sacrilege. If development is absolutely necessary then this should be scaled in line with the development of infrastructure and resources and must include schools and medical facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 13568

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Russell & Karen Prigmore & Britland-Jones

I&O_14087
As residents of Cuddington, we would like to register our objection to any significant further housing development in the Cuddington and Sandiway area per the proposed new local plan. Specifically we would draw your attention to the following: 1 - Any development on agricultural and /or greenbelt land in a country already over populated and heavily reliant on overseas food imports, is reprehensible and unacceptable from our perspective. 2 - Where development is required, we would expect to see a detailed proposal to exploit brownfield sites as a priority.  This has not been done. 3 - Local road infrastructure and rail transport links are completely inadequate to cope with developments at this scale. 4 - Developments that have been completed in the last decade have placed enormous strain on local services, without any increased provision for schooling, healthcare, transport, shopping etc. 5 - Any proposals must cover the actual need for local people including starter homes for the young, bungalows for downsizing, and should not support the provision of 100’s of 4/5 bedroom properties that are not required for the local market. Overall, it is our view that the scale and the nature of the emerging proposals for the new local plan will destroy the essential nature and community identity of Cuddington and Sandiway village.