Comment

Representation ID: 13604

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andy Dunn

CUD01
I&O_14123
As a resident of Cuddington and Sandiway, I am dumbfounded as to why even more sites are even being considered for here and surrounding areas. Not to mention the amount currently under planning scrutiny. However, I am pragmatic and as much as I understand some of this may be put forward, I have serious concerns about the site specifically on plot CUD01. As a resident of Smithy Lane this land which is currently Green Belt and agricultural (currently planted with potatoes) and has been for generations. Below are some points myself and neighbours (who may have also responded, so there may be some repetition) have identified as to why this plot is specifically unsuitable for consideration.  The respective plots will not meet any Govt criteria regarding Affordable Housing (due to land values), Place Based Growth, or even transport connectivity to key employment areas (and no plans for this in our area either) Local Plan was for small developments of less than 5 houses providing 2 or 3 bedrooms (not 4 bedroom detached executive type homes) for young people to remain in the area and start families to offset the aging population  Last Local Plan identified 11 important vistas that need protecting in the area. 3 of those vistas are on this plot There is evidence of important wildlife on this plot living within the wooded grove within this plot including bats and badgers There has been no formal planning application previously submitted (and rejected) for this plot, so there will be no dispensation under the Grey Belt definition under the current Govt.  Cheshire West, Cheshire East and Warrington will form a Mayoral Combined Authority but this has been delayed to May 2027. The first Mayoral Development Zones will focus on Warrington. Northern Powerhouse Rail (announcement before Labour Conference shortly) and possibly Crewe thereafter. There’s nothing around us to warrant housing pressures on Sandiway and Cuddington; this should have been provided in Winnington etc.  ⁠In summary, there should be no housing pressures on our village other than profiteering developers and, if there were, the previous reasons above should negate anywhere around this area without considering locality of Green Belt and SSSI restrictions 

Comment

Representation ID: 13635

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Julian Key

SS 36
I&O_14154
I am writing to object to the plans to build further properties around the Sandiway and Cuddington area. Specifically the area highlighted in plans as CUD05 which is currently and should remain as greenbelt. The building on greenbelt will significantly change the local environment removing areas currently used for agriculture and for walking and should not be allowed. I would also like to highlight that the roads around that area are currently narrow and dangerous with not enough room for two cars to pass in a number of places. These roads can not cope with current let alone increased traffic. There also seem to be no plans to provide the infrastructure required to service increased housing e.g. Doctors, Dentists, Schools particularly given that these services are already under pressure.

Comment

Representation ID: 13672

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Latham

I&O_14191
I think that to keep with the current plan requirement, stated at the time the Cuddington Neighbour-hood Plan was made, to build an additional 200 houses (which has already been exceeded with 2 significant developments) is as much as the Village infrastructure can take. To raise this requirement significantly, as Regulation 18 implies, is an impingement which the Cuddington Neighbour-hood Plan (based on responses to local questionnaires) was opposed to by the vast majority of responders.

Comment

Representation ID: 13675

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alex Dickinson

I&O_14194
For Cuddington & Sandiway: According to the Cheshire West and Chester 2017 Housing Land Monitor Report Cuddington Parish Key Service Centre is very close to meeting its 2030 housing target of 200 houses. Between 2010 and 2017 147 houses have been completed and, on 1 April 2017, a further 51 houses had extant outline or full planning permission. Thus there are a further two houses required to achieve the 2030 target based on the current assessment. Please take this on board when considering the options for the revised Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 13679

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Eddie

CUD01,CUD02,CUD03,CUD04,CUD05
I&O_14199
Dear Sir/Madam 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 are as below: The sites are: 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 opposed to the plan in totality, but vehemently opposed to building of any kind taking place particularly south of the A556. All of the plans submitted affect CUDD03 (why?), and development here has already been rejected by the government as recently as 2022, as it would fundamentally change the nature of the village. CUDD03 is an area of natural beauty encompassing old land and prime farmland, and serves the community in terms of health, exercise and nature. As the council are well aware, there were legal challenges in recent years to the development to the south side of the village and his was recently upheld.     I note the following points   Cuddington and Sandiway is already struggling with a lack of public services and extremely poor transport links. One train per hour at best and often replaced by a bus service on Sundays is woefully insufficient.   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 I am particularly opposed to plans being developed, ALL which have the CUDD03 site at risk.   Aside from the loss of fantastic woodland Kennel Woods, I note that the plans facilitate the development of non- residential development which is entirely out of keeping with the area. Development of infrastructures should rightly be in the centre if the villages, close to where the population live! Loss of high-quality agricultural land – The sites would lead to the irreversible loss of Grade 2 farmland, with insufficient justification given Transport and safety concerns – There is insufficient public transport links, and highways that are not repaired effectively or efficiently Strain on healthcare and services – Local GP practices are already overstretched, with the local surgery recently closed.  The proposal as a whole also undermines the semi-rural identity of the parish 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. For clarity, I am opposed to all plans put forwards: A, B and C, but particularly any development of Kennel Woods, at a time when we should be protecting woodland.  We are happy that the existing strategic plan plan will continue the needs of the village and be consistent with government policy.  

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13704

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Woodbine

I&O_14224
Over the past several years Sandiway & Cuddington has already undergone significant development, it has also placed increasing pressure on our local infrastructure, environment, and overall character as a small, close-knit rural community. The scale and pace of recent developments have altered the traditional nature of the village, affected traffic and road safety, and placed a strain on essential services. More importantly, continued development risks eroding the very qualities that make this area special and a desirable place to live—its tranquility, green spaces, and strong community spirit. We acknowledge the need for sustainable growth, but we firmly believe that this area has already contributed more than its fair share. At this stage, further development would be detrimental rather than beneficial to both current and future residents. I therefore respectfully urge planners and developers to reconsider any additional proposals and to instead prioritize the protection of our village’s character, heritage, and natural environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 13709

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Robert, Margaret and Andrew Rogers

I&O_14229
It has been brought to my attention based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number of new houses to the Cuddington area and east of Delamere Park to the tune of 3861. I would like to object to any new housing in these areas for the following reasons 1- The area needs retaining to promote the green belt land for agricultural and natural use. Ultimately, we have to have a self sufficient food source in the UK. 3- The appalling state left by other developments Taylor Wimpey have been on the estate on the site of the former yoghurt factory for over 20 years leaving horrendous dust clouds and continual noise pollution and subjecting many houses to damage and putting people’s lives at risk. We think we should keep to the original plan for the Cuddington area.

Comment

Representation ID: 13736

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Adele Bouckley

I&O_14256
I would like to register my views with regard to the Issues and Options document for Cuddington and Sandiway that may form part of the Local Plan to be adopted in 2026. I would  object to use of the potential options for the following reasons.   According to your own draft plan for 2025, "Government advice is that the Green Belt can only be altered in exceptional circumstances, so it is important to demonstrate that all other reasonable options for meeting needs have been fully explored first, such as using brownfield sites in settlements, increased densities and assessing the potential for growth in neighbouring areas." Development should be appropriate in scale and design to conserve that settlements’ character and setting, and should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made.  As such, a substantial increase in the size of the settlement, as considered by this document,  would have an impact on the character and setting of the village.  According to the local neighbourhood plan, "the rural character and historical setting are features of the Parish that local residents identify strongly with their community. In order to preserve this identity, development should be prioritised on sites where it does not impact negatively on the character and setting of the settlement areas."  To propose development on the scale and particularly in the green belt areas proposed would be detrimental to this character. While Cuddington and Sandiway provide for many of the day to day needs of the residents, there is no provision for a surgery in the area, that having been closed within the last 5 years.  The limited bus service and train services mean that most residents rely on private cars.  Traffic is already significant on both A49 and A556 roads, particularly when there are issues with M56, holiday traffic towards Chester and N Wales.  Parking within the village for local shops is already limited/ in full use.

Comment

Representation ID: 13739

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Anna Wood

CUD03
I&O_14259
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 are as below: The sites are: 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 opposed to the plan in totality, but vehemently opposed to building of any kind taking place particularly south of the A556. All of the plans submitted affect CUDD03 (why?), and development here has already been rejected by the government as recently as 2022, as it would fundamentally change the nature of the village. CUDD03 is an area of natural beauty encompassing old land and prime farmland, and serves the community in terms of health, exercise and nature. As the council are well aware, there were legal challenges in recent years to the development to the south side of the village and his was recently upheld.   I note the following points Cuddington and Sandiway is already struggling with a lack of public services and extremely poor transport links. One train per hour at best and often replaced by a bus service on Sundays is woefully insufficient.   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 I am particularly opposed to plans being developed, ALL which have the CUDD03 site at risk.   Aside from the loss of fantastic woodland Kennel Woods, I note that the plans facilitate the development of non- residential development which is entirely out of keeping with the area. Development of infrastructures should rightly be in the centre if the villages, close to where the population live! Loss of high-quality agricultural land – The sites would lead to the irreversible loss of Grade 2 farmland, with insufficient justification given Transport and safety concerns – There is insufficient public transport links, and highways that are not repaired effectively or efficiently Strain on healthcare and services – Local GP practices are already overstretched, with the local surgery recently closed.  The proposal as a whole also undermines the semi-rural identity of the parish 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. For clarity, I am opposed to all plans put forwards: A, B and C, but particularly any development of Kennel Woods, at a time when we should be protecting woodland.  We are happy that the existing strategic plan will continue the needs of the village and be consistent with government policy.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13823

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Webster

I&O_14343
Based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number of new houses to the Cuddington area and east of Delamere Park my vote and objection would be as follows: My preferred option is Option A - to retain the area as is, promote the green belt land for agricultural and natural use. Ultimately we have to have to be a self sufficient food source in the UK. If building is absolutely essential under national plans then I would elect 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 are limited amenities. There is limited public transport in this area.  Delamere Park has a weekly bus, there are hourly buses from Cuddington to Northwich, trains are only 1 per hour from Cuddington station and take 1hour and 7 minutes to get to Manchester, A and B roads are of poor quality currently. Adding more traffic would create further problems. There are no doctors in the area; our surgery was closed two years ago and we have to travel to Northwich or Weaverham. There are no secondary schools locally. Local employment is mainly agricultural, which will reduce if land is built on.

Comment

Representation ID: 13828

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Waveney Oakley

I&O_14348
local plan Cuddington Sandiway and Delamere Park  I would like to add my support for retaining the Green Belt- Option 1. Why? It’s green belt prime agricultural land which is still used as such. No transport alternative to the family car. The current population which has increased considerably with 3 new housing estates in the last 12?years relies on one train an hour which is overcrowded now and uses ancient unreliable rolling stock . Transport links and quality of life are why people move . We do not have the first and will lose the second becoming another overcrowded suburb of Greater Northwich like Hartford. Please look at brownfield sites and transport issues as well as impact on environment and loss of good agricultural land .

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13888

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Beamson

I&O_14408
I am writing to comment on SS8 spatial strategy options, especially with regard to Delamere Park. My preference is for Option A - Retain the Green Belt. The roads and minor lanes surrounding Delamere Park are not compatible with the increased traffic they would bear as a result of housing in the proposed development areas CUD04 and CUD05. They are inadequate for the existing traffic and unsafe for vulnerable road users such as walkers, runners, horse riders and cyclists, and would only become more so if CUD04 and CUD05 were used for housing developments. In general, these roads are narrow and winding with sharp bends, high hedges, blind summits and blind junctions. I cycle them and regularly encounter problems due to fast vehicles passing close on narrow roads. The occupants of houses on CUD04 and CUD05 would want to use these roads to access shops and facilities in the surrounding area which would compound the already difficult traffic situation.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13894

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Tilley

CUD01 - CUD05
I&O_14414
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 are as below: The sites are: 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 opposed to the plan in totality, but vehemently opposed to building of any kind taking place particularly south of the A556. All of the plans submitted affect CUDD03 (why?), and development here has already been rejected by the government as recently as 2022, as it would fundamentally change the nature of the village. CUDD03 is an area of natural beauty encompassing old land and prime farmland, and serves the community in terms of health, exercise and nature. As the council are well aware, there were legal challenges in recent years to the development to the south side of the village and his was recently upheld.     I note the following points   1.           Cuddington and Sandiway is already struggling with a lack of public services and extremely poor transport links. One train per hour at best and often replaced by a bus service on Sundays is woefully insufficient.   2.           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 3.           I am particularly opposed to plans being developed, ALL which have the CUDD03 site at risk.   Aside from the loss of fantastic woodland Kennel Woods, I note that the plans facilitate the development of non- residential development which is entirely out of keeping with the area. Development of infrastructures should rightly be in the centre if the villages, close to where the population live! 4.           Loss of high-quality agricultural land – The sites would lead to the irreversible loss of Grade 2 farmland, with insufficient justification given 5.           Transport and safety concerns – There is insufficient public transport links, and highways that are not repaired effectively or efficiently 6.           Strain on healthcare and services – Local GP practices are already overstretched, with the local surgery recently closed.  7.           The proposal as a whole also undermines the semi-rural identity of the parish 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.   For clarity, I am opposed to all plans put forwards: A, B and C, but particularly any development of Kennel Woods, at a time when we should be protecting woodland.  We are happy that the existing strategic plan will continue the needs of the village and be consistent with government policy.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14011

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Erin Butler

I&O_14548
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 are as below: The sites are: 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 opposed to the plan in totality, but vehemently opposed to building of any kind taking place particularly south of the A556. All of the plans submitted affect CUDD03 (why?), and development here has already been rejected by the government as recently as 2022, as it would fundamentally change the nature of the village. CUDD03 is an area of natural beauty encompassing old land and prime farmland, and serves the community in terms of health, exercise and nature. As the council are well aware, there were legal challenges in recent years to the development to the south side of the village and his was recently upheld.     I note the following points   Cuddington and Sandiway is already struggling with a lack of public services and extremely poor transport links. One train per hour at best and often replaced by a bus service on Sundays is woefully insufficient.   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 I am particularly opposed to plans being developed, ALL which have the CUDD03 site at risk.   Aside from the loss of fantastic woodland Kennel Woods, I note that the plans facilitate the development of non- residential development which is entirely out of keeping with the area. Development of infrastructures should rightly be in the centre if the villages, close to where the population live! Loss of high-quality agricultural land – The sites would lead to the irreversible loss of Grade 2 farmland, with insufficient justification given Transport and safety concerns – There is insufficient public transport links, and highways that are not repaired effectively or efficiently Strain on healthcare and services – Local GP practices are already overstretched, with the local surgery recently closed.  The proposal as a whole also undermines the semi-rural identity of the parish 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.   For clarity, I am opposed to all plans put forwards: A, B and C, but particularly any development of Kennel Woods, at a time when we should be protecting woodland.  We are happy that the existing strategic plan plan will continue the needs of the village and be consistent with government policy.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14024

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Deakin

I&O_14561
If you take the decision to build on land around cuddington: Cud01 appears to include the local playing fields. It would be unacceptable to build.on them. Cud02/Cud03 seems to have good access to a major road and appears to have minimal impact on current residents other than the increased traffic. These two areas run along a major road so access should not be a.problem.  Cud04/05 should not be built.on. I don't see how cud05 could be used. Cuddington lane and norley road often flood. It appears to me that access would have to be granted from these roads. Cuddington lane is a very narrow road unsuitable for large vehicles heavy traffic. Norley Road near waste lane is also a pinch point and unsuitable for increased traffic. There are no footpaths alond norley road or cuddington lane. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14096

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jan Thorpe

I&O_14639
This email is to register objection to the development areas identified around the villages of Cuddington and Sandiway - CUD01-CUD05.   Our area has been significantly over developed in the last few years with massive housing projects  within 3 miles of the village. Estates at Hartford and Winnington have multiplied housing stock and resident numbers. This has created stress on local services - doctors, dentists and schools, as well as creating significant traffic issues. There is much for CWAC to do to enhance local services to match and integrate the new local population, without adding additional residential areas.   The proposed areas for development are on agricultural and green belt land. This land should be preserved for the local agricultural business. Northwich has many brownfield areas due to its industrial past, any new developments should re-purpose brownfield sites as a priority.   I hope you will take this feedback to inform the drafting of the Local Plan 

Comment

Representation ID: 14154

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rose Green

I&O_14698
I would like to have my objection noted to any further significant housing developments in Cuddington and Sandiway.  The infrastructure is already strained (particularly traffic) and adding further houses without significant investment will have a significant adverse effect on safety, pollution and congestion.  I am particularly concerned that any development on the Chester road side will lead to increased traffic flow past Sandiway School, which is already difficult to walk to due to the pollution, speed and volume of traffic travelling down Norley Road.  Thanks for noting my objection. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14165

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gail Rosa

I&O_14709
I am writing to put forward my  STRONG OBJECTIONS to the proposed planning in the Cuddington/ Sandiway area as outlined at the meeting chaired by Chairman of the Council, Gillian Edwards at aDelamere  Park 27 August. There are several areas that have been outlined and are a cause of concern. The area stretching from Delamere Park to the A49 is that which I shall focus on for the present. I understand that there are three options:- Option A : I strongly feel that the area should be retained as it is in line with Option A This would retain the green belt land for agriculture and wildlife. In so doing the beauty of the landscape , wildlife and a village community would be preserved. Option B seems to be in line with the old local development plans where 500 houses would be permissible. I understand that this would have to be a necessity. I would need more information but at present I accept that this may be reasonable. OptionC : Pertaining in particular to the above mentioned area from Delamere Park to A49 with apparent transport corridor. I am totally opposed to this plan. In fact I cannot accept that it has been suggested. It is an area of green belt land with all the attributes that I have outlined above. There is a clause that building on Green belt requires strong justification. Unfortunately Government policy has changed recently at both local and National level and criteria for justification also. Hopefully the CW council will honour the original justification clause.

Comment

Representation ID: 14412

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Mckay

I&O_14956
As noted previously, of the options posed for Cuddington & Sandiway, I would fully support option A (retaining the green belt). I believe that option B (follow current local plan) and option C (sustainable transport corridors) would open the door to loss of the green belts. Moreover, I think option C is particularly mis-guided. Whilst Cuddington is on a train line (to Chester / Altrincham) the frequency and reliability of trains would be of limited benefit to most residents thereby creating more road traffic. As a cyclist the local area is already fraught with due to poor driving skills.

Comment

Representation ID: 14429

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Rosa

I&O_14973
am writing to put forward my STRONG OBJECTIONS to the proposed planning in the Cuddington/ Sandiway area as outlined at the meeting chaired by Chairman of the Council, Gillian Edwards at a Delamere Park on the  27 August. There are several areas that have been outlined and are a cause of concern. The area stretching from Delamere Park to the A49 is that which I shall focus on for the present. I understand that there are three options:-   Option A : I strongly feel that the area should be retained as it is in line with Option A : This would retain the green belt land for agriculture and wildlife. In so doing the beauty of the landscape , wildlife and a village community would be preserved.   Option B: seems to be in line with the old local development plans where 500 houses would be permissible. I understand that this would have to be a necessity. I would need more information but at present I accept that this may be a possibility depending on where and how it is proposed.   OptionC : Pertaining in particular to the above mentioned area from Delamere Park to A49 with apparent transport corridor. I am totally opposed to this plan. In fact I cannot accept that it has been suggested. It is an area of green belt land with all the attributes that I have outlined above. There is a clause that building on Green belt requires strong justification. Unfortunately Government policy has changed recently at both local and National level and criteria for justification also. Hopefully the CW council will honour the original justification clause. Finally, the transport corridor from Delamere Park is already hazardous regarding road traffic. The country lanes are narrow with lethal bends. Cuddington Lane in particular is used as a short cut at peak times and the volume of traffic is excessive. There are no amenities such as schools or doctors in that area. Buses and trains are available but not frequent. I cannot believe that up to 1500 houses are considered to be feasible in this area.   I STRONGLY OBJECT.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14436

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Cowen

CUD01-05
I&O_14980
I am aware that currently the local plan is being rewritten to incorporate a greater number of houses across the borough . 1900 per year across the borough is my understanding I have seen the proposed land availability assessment for the village if Sandiway and cuddington offering a total assessment of approx 4000 houses We are a village . This is a village community. Your assessment would turn it into a small town I object to such a radical assessment and will object should any or all of these proposed sites move forward to the planning stage The areas assessed cud 1,2,3,4,and 5 Each come with a different set of issues , which would need to be discussed individually should planning ever come to fruition

Comment

Representation ID: 14445

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Deakin

CUD01, CUD04, CUD05
I&O_14989
In addition to my preference for OPTION A - my preference is that any proposed housing developments should be accessible from a main route, i.e. access from A49 or A556. There are a number of minor roads that border the areas highlighted as potential development areas in Cuddington and Sandiway, which are completely unsuitable for the increased traffic and access requirements that up to 1500 new dwellings would necessitate. For example Norley Road, Cuddington Lane and Mill Lane fall within CUD05 and are already classed as hazardous routes for pedestrians and cyclists due to the absence of footpaths and there are also many stretches of these roads where traffic can only pass single file.  In addition to this, Norley Road and Cuddington Lane have been closed due to flooding on numerous occasions over the last few years, making already hazardous routes more congested and dangerous - increased traffic would just exacerbate this problem.  The consultation talks about developments near to locations with train stations - Cuddington and Acton Bridge stations have extremely limited parking capacity and it is already evident that vehicles are parked on surrounding roads in residential areas causing additional hazards within small village communities. You can also not assume that residents will walk to the train station - a large proportion will undoubtedly drive and park closer to the station.  Therefore I WOULD NOT SUPPORT housing developments in areas CUD01, CUD04 or CUD05.

Comment

Representation ID: 14509

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Zoe Glendinning

CUD05
I&O_15055
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: 14651

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Barbara and David Holloway

I&O_15201
I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to build houses to the east side of Delamere Park ref: CUD05.   For the following 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: 14652

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Liz Breakwell

I&O_15202
I would like to stress how important it is that you listen to the residents of the Farndon community regarding the proposed housing targets . Farndon is a small village and does not have the infrastructure to meet the requirements for the scale of housing being proposed. Councils across the country have challenged their revised housing targets from the government and Cheshire West should also challenge them . We as a borough have built more houses than required over the years and so have achieved our targets. The high number of houses being proposed is totally unsustainable as demonstrated in the Neighbourhood Plan docs and even though Farndon may need to take some share of future house building there is total lack of infrastructure and there is no plan to improve or expand this capacity.    For the residents living outside of Farndon, theres again no infrastructure in place for the likes of the smaller villages of Tilston and Churton.  The planning policy and decision process will need to take into account how the proposed developers are going to deliver the infrastructure as otherwise it is going to make settlements unsustainable. Highways also needs to look at the increased amount of traffic in Farndon , Churton and Tilston which would cause congestion and pollution within the rural areas. The main A525 has had many serious accidents and fatalities along that stretch of the road.  Farndon has a total lack of facilities ie shop provision , doctors surgeries and education spaces. The outlying villages of Tilston and Churton have even less of an infrastructure than Farndon.  Presently , with the current climate there are no affordable houses anywhere due to the current mortgage rates and lack of wages. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14656

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Louise Haynes

I&O_15206
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. Further to this there is an abundance of wildlife who use this area as habitat, that would be rendered homeless due to such development. As wildlife numbers are in decline I would not wish to see this progress any further through what I observe to be unlawful development.   

Comment

Representation ID: 15481

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16040
No comments at this stage

Comment

Representation ID: 15558

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Liberty Properties plc

Agent: Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd

I&O_16117
It is considered that development of land on the eastern and western sides of Cuddington & Sandiway is most suitable. Whilst land to the west has been identified within growth area CUD04, an equally logical extension to the settlement would comprise an extent of land to the east – including, but not specific to the parcel bordered by the rail line to the north, Weaverham Road to the south and a delineation comparable to the extent of the wider built form of the settlement to the east. This is set out in more detail in a new site suggestion, put forward concurrently as part of the Issues & Options consultation exercise. Potential growth areas CUD01 – 05 have clearly come about as a result of historic representations made by landowners and any associated parties (promoters). The fact that land to the east of the settlement has not been identified in the Issues & Options papers does not mean the option should be discounted. It is submitted that the Liberty Properties land is better placed to support the recognised principles of the 800m buffer zone to rural train stations. The pedestrian links from the land to the station are well established and more conducive to a safe / user-friendly route than any route that would involve use of any of the other potential growth area options. It is submitted that land within growth area CUD04 and what is suggested as its equivalent on the eastern side of the settlement, (subject to variation), would be considered appropriate for development under existing national grey belt policy, as it does not contribute to purposes a), b) or d) of Green Belt land. Therefore, it is the most appropriate option for growth of Cuddington & Sandiway, whilst retaining the Green Belt as a whole. Potential growth areas CUD02 & CUD03, whilst open countryside and not Green Belt, do not serve as logical extensions to the settlement. The main Chester Road (A556) forms a very logical defendable boundary to the natural growth of the settlement to the south. Any growth to the south of Cuddington & Sandiway will simply weaken its position as a self-contained settlement, resulting in progressive extension into the open countryside without defendable boundary. Likewise, potential growth areas CUD01 & CUD05, do not serve as logical extensions to the settlement. The main rail line forms a very logical defendable boundary to the natural growth of the settlement to the north. Again, any growth to the north of Cuddington & Sandiway will simply weaken its position as a self-contained settlement, resulting in progressive extension into the open countryside without defendable boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 15894

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Central & Country Developments Ltd

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16453
Whilst CUD04 would not comply with Option A as put forward in this Issues and Options document at present. As set out above once a Green Belt assessment has been undertaken it is anticipated that this area of growth will become suitable for all options of the emerging Local Plan because of it falling within the definition of Grey Belt. Moreover this area of growth would clearly round off the settlement, and locate development in a sustainable location, close to the heart of the communities services and facilities in  Cuddington.

Object

Representation ID: 16418

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: ENVIROWATCH.EU

I&O_15140
1(c)
‘’CUDDINGTON and Sandiway’s proposed new 266-home development could set ‘a dangerous precedent’ for ‘eroding rural character’, the villages' MP has claimed. ‘’ The above ,objection, and reasons are supported because of suggested allocation and reduction in environmental loss with no biodiversity gain as is also required.