Comment

Representation ID: 17176

Received: 18/06/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Please find our comments attached to the below request.

Comment

Representation ID: 17177

Received: 19/06/2026

Respondent: Sport England

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above neighbourhood plan.

Government planning policy, within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), identifies how the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking, cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process. Providing enough sports facilities of the right quality and type in the right places is vital to achieving this aim. This means that positive planning for sport, protection from the unnecessary loss of sports facilities, along with an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land with community facilities is important.

Therefore, it is essential that the neighbourhood plan reflects and complies with national planning policy for sport as set out in the NPPF with particular reference to Pars 103 and 104. It is also important to be aware of Sport England’s statutory consultee role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing field land. Sport England’s playing fields policy is set out in our Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document.
https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#playing_fields_policy

Sport England provides guidance on developing planning policy for sport and further information can be found via the link below. Vital to the development and implementation of planning policy is the evidence base on which it is founded.
https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#planning_applications

Sport England works with local authorities to ensure their Local Plan is underpinned by robust and up to date evidence. In line with Par 104 of the NPPF, this takes the form of assessments of need and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. A neighbourhood planning body should look to see if the relevant local authority has prepared a playing pitch strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports facility strategy. If it has then this could provide useful evidence for the neighbourhood plan and save the neighbourhood planning body time and resources gathering their own evidence. It is important that a neighbourhood plan reflects the recommendations and actions set out in any such strategies, including those which may specifically relate to the neighbourhood area, and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support their delivery.

Where such evidence does not already exist then relevant planning policies in a neighbourhood plan should be based on a proportionate assessment of the need for sporting provision in its area. Developed in consultation with the local sporting and wider community any assessment should be used to provide key recommendations and deliverable actions. These should set out what provision is required to ensure the current and future needs of the community for sport can be met and, in turn, be able to support the development and implementation of planning policies. Sport England’s guidance on assessing needs may help with such work.
http://www.sportengland.org/planningtoolsandguidance

If new or improved sports facilities are proposed Sport England recommend you ensure they are fit for purpose and designed in accordance with our design guidance notes.
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/

Any new housing developments will generate additional demand for sport. If existing sports facilities do not have the capacity to absorb the additional demand, then planning policies should look to ensure that new sports facilities, or improvements to existing sports facilities, are secured and delivered. Proposed actions to meet the demand should accord with any approved local plan or neighbourhood plan policy for social infrastructure, along with priorities resulting from any assessment of need, or set out in any playing pitch or other indoor and/or outdoor sports facility strategy that the local authority has in place.

In line with the Government’s NPPF (including Section 8) and its Planning Practice Guidance (Health and wellbeing section), links below, consideration should also be given to how any new development, especially for new housing, will provide opportunities for people to lead healthy lifestyles and create healthy communities. Sport England’s Active Design guidance can be used to help with this when developing planning policies and developing or assessing individual proposals.

Active Design, which includes a model planning policy, provides ten principles to help ensure the design and layout of development encourages and promotes participation in sport and physical activity. The guidance, and its accompanying checklist, could also be used at the evidence gathering stage of developing a neighbourhood plan to help undertake an assessment of how the design and layout of the area currently enables people to lead active lifestyles and what could be improved.

NPPF Section 8: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/8-promoting-healthy-communities

PPG Health and wellbeing section: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/health-and-wellbeing

Sport England’s Active Design Guidance: https://www.sportengland.org/activedesign

(Please note: this response relates to Sport England’s planning function only. It is not associated with our funding role or any grant application/award that may relate to the site.)

If you need any further advice, please do not hesitate to contact Sport England using the contact details below.

Comment

Representation ID: 17178

Received: 19/06/2026

Respondent: National Highways

Thank you for consulting National Highways.

Given the scope of the proposals, National Highways anticipates minimal impact to the SRN at this stage and therefore raises no comments to the Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plans.

If any changes/updates arise, please feel free to get in touch.

Comment

Representation ID: 17179

Received: 24/06/2026

Respondent: Mr Alastair Gibson

I am in agreement with the proposed modification to the neighborhood plan

Comment

Representation ID: 17180

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent: Mr David Barton

Please find attached my PDF Umbrella Representation which comprises a key part of my submission for the aforementioned Tattenhall and District Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultation.

Traditional Architecture Design Codes should be a central component across this entire consultation and its various chapters and sections especially concerning new construction. It performs strongly on economic, ecological and environmental grounds as can be attested to by leading figures and organisations with academic studies that corroborate this. Please see my PDF Umbrella Representation for the various merits outlined including Placemaking and Greenery Proposals. A ban on demolition of buildings constructed prior to 1950 should be enacted as soon as possible with reconstructions of previously demolished historic buildings listed or not given full support for restoration and reuse.
Non-Designated Heritage Assets and unclassified historic buildings should also be given full protection and support against their demolition, such as selling of publicly owned historic buildings that will be demolished otherwise.

Historic buildings should be duly reconstructed authentically as they were.

Whilst present points are mostly find the shift to utilising authentic Traditional Architecture based Design Codes will mitigate concerns facing all key stakeholders ranging from incumbent local residents to the Local Authority and House Builders and prospective new residents and businesses alike. It does this by directly addressing the need for housing, the otherwise avoidable strain on the environment and surrounding biodiversity whilst enabling the complete Cheshire West to shine and stand out as a source of economic activity that can withstand local, regional, national and international pressures.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Comment

Representation ID: 17185

Received: 12/07/2026

Respondent: Mr Allan Topp

I own land at the below address and would like a portion of it to be considered for allocation in the Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan.
Land Registry Number CH349313
Total land registered 3.8 acres. Approximately 2 acres is proposed for the building of 9 residential dwellings
My address [redacted]
Please advise if the above is sufficient information for consideration and inclusion of this land in the Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan

[further information provided 26/7/26]:
in response to your email, I enclose the redline drawing of the property we purchased in 1994 as provided by our solicitor at that time, with sketched in the proposed land for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan. Also enclosed is an enlargement of same specific area showing the access route (which has been tentatively agreed in principle with our neighbour).
The area of land for inclusion, is etched in red and the access to it is lined in yellow. The area now lies to the rear of Harrison Close numbers 24 to 14 but is separated from those by a belt of mature oak trees on our side which we would prefer to retain undisturbed by subsequent future development.

Comment

Representation ID: 17186

Received: 03/07/2026

Respondent: The Coal Authority

Thank you for your notification of 18 June 2026 seeking the views of the Coal Authority on the above.

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.

However, the area to which this consultation relates is not located within the defined coalfield. On this basis we have no specific comments to make.

Comment

Representation ID: 17187

Received: 09/07/2026

Respondent: Welsh Water

Thank you for consulting Dwr Cymru Welsh Water on the Tattenhall & District Modified Neighbourhood Plan 2025 – 2045 Regulation 16 consultation. We appreciate the opportunity to engage in the Neighbourhood Plan process, and we offer the following representation for your consideration. Please note that we are the statutory undertaker for foul drainage in Tattenhall; however, we are not responsible for potable drinking water supply in the area.

Policy 4: Local Facilities we welcome that the policy states that proposals for development will be required to identify their likely impact on local infrastructure, services and facilities and to demonstrate how any such impacts will be addressed, in accordance with the provisions of Local Plan (Part One) Policies STRAT 11 (Infrastructure).

Policy 7: Site Allocations identifies a proposed new housing allocation for 600 homes at Frog Lane. We are pleased that the policy specifies the requirement for early engagement with wastewater providers to ensure that site constraints and capacity are appropriately addressed.

Sewerage Network: Adequate drainage infrastructure is key to ensuring new development sites are sustainable, viable and deliverable. Given the size of the proposed allocation, the developer would be required to undertake a Hydraulic Modelling Assessment (HMA) of the sewerage network. Once commissioned and completed the HMA would identify suitable connection points and/or the necessary reinforcement works required to the public sewerage network to accommodate the development (for example upsizing sewers, additional storage tanks etc). Developers would be strongly recommended to fund investigations at pre-application stage. Should the HMA establish that reinforcements are required to the network costings would be provided to the developer at detailed design stage. The developer would need to fund a scheme by way of the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act or via a legal/commercial agreement with Welsh Water. The delivery of any necessary reinforcements to the sewerage network can controlled by including a suitable worded condition on any future planning permissions granted.

Alternatively, developers could also explore if the removal of surface water flows from the public sewerage system could offset the new foul flows from the proposed development. This approach could release capacity within the sewerage network for further development; we would welcome early engagement with the site developer.

There are existing sewerage assets crossing the site (125mm diameter pressurised rising main sewer, 225mm & 300mm diameter foul sewers, and 150mm diameter surface water sewer) and protection measures in respect of these assets will be required, usually in the form of an easement width or in some instances a diversion.

Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW): The WwTW serving the village of Tattenhall does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate a further 600 homes, as such additional capacity would need to be created at the WwTW to accommodate this level of growth.

Welsh Water’s capital investment is undertaken through a five-yearly Asset Management Plan (AMP) programme. The AMP8 programme is currently being delivered which covers investment for the period 2025-30, this will be followed by AMP9 for 2030-2035, AMP10 for 2035-2040, and AMP11 for 2040-45.

Welsh Water is required to put forward a business plan for investment for each AMP cycle. Funding for capital investment is raised through customers’ bills, therefore, to ensure that customer’s money is invested appropriately we require some certainty in terms of growth areas and site development proposals. An adopted Local Plan with allocated growth helps strengthen the case Welsh Water can put forward to our regulator Ofwat in relation to WwTWs requiring AMP funding. Given the Cheshire Local Plan & Neighbourhood Plan is anticipated to have a timeframe to 2045, infrastructure investment required at Tattenhall WwTWs may be considered for delivery in future AMPs.

If a development site comes forward in advance of any confirmed AMP investment, the developer would need to undertake a Developer Impact Assessment (DIA) to establish the reinforcement works needed at the WwTW to accommodate their site. There are provisions available for developers to make financial contributions to secure the necessary reinforcements, subject to the outcome of a DIA. If there is a future AMP scheme planned to provide the required capacity, then a suitably worded Grampian style planning condition can be included on planning permissions to control occupation of development to the delivery date of the WwTW scheme.

Tattenhall WwTW is located to the north-west of the proposed allocation, and the proposed allocation would bring residential properties in closer proximity to the WwTW. As such we would recommend that the Local Planning Authority discuss the potential allocation with their Environmental Health Department to establish whether there is the potential for odour nuisance for future residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 17188

Received: 10/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Hogan

I am a resident of Tattenhall and I do not agree with the modified version of the neighbourhood plan. My comments follow.

I have previously expressed concerns at the drafting stage and do not see that my concerns have been addressed. As such I cannot support the modified version.

The modified plan includes specific site allocations for residential dwellings described as Phase 1 and Phase 2. It also increases the existing North West settlement boundary adjacent to Chester Road in order to meet up with Phase 2. I disagree with this additional area allocation as inappropriate, unnecessary and on the grounds of potential increase of traffic flow towards Gatesheath and the A41.

The modified plan respects a need for an additional 600 homes, specified by CWaC, representing a 50% increase in village size. Putting aside the valid argument as to whether Tattenhall specifically has a local need for 600 homes, it is clear that there will be an impact on village infrastructure and High Street. I believe there must be a pause on housing development after Phase 1 so as to assess the impact of Phase 1 on the village infrastructure. This pause should be enunciated, timed and be a specific policy.

I suggest that NO other planning applications should be considered during the duration of Phase 1 and a subsequent pause. This may be difficult to express but could be embraced as a policy stating "no new housing developments within the settlement boundary of over (say) 6 homes will be supported other than on the shaded Phase 1 and Phase 2 land". I consider this is essential to arrest and resist creepage of new housing within the settlement boundary in addition to the Phase 1 400 homes.

I believe that the modified plan must be phrased in stronger language to only support identified local needs whilst deterring opportunist expansion that would otherwise appear to be supported under the modified plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17189

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Natural England

Thank you for consulting us on the modified Tattenhall and District Neighbourhood Plan, as well as the associated SEA and HRA/Appropriate Assessment.

We welcome the changes that have been made and the further assessment undertaken, which has removed our concerns.

Comment

Representation ID: 17190

Received: 22/07/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Graham and Glynis Ward

At the Tattenhall Parish Council public meeting on 5 March at the Barbour Institute the Neighbourhood Plan was presented. At that meeting the Council stated that the proposed village settlement boundary has been drawn to include:
• the existing village residential area, and
• the Bolesworth land allocated for Phase 1 and Phase 2

The Neighbourhood Plan states that applications within the settlement boundary will not be opposed by the Parish Council. Whereas applications outside the settlement boundary, whilst not being opposed automatically, will be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny as indeed they should.

However, the settlement boundary in the published Plan appears to have been drawn arbitrarily to include the field immediately to the west of the Millbrook Meadow development - see attached diagram “Settlement boundary – as per the Modified Neighbourhood Plan”. However, this field is:
• not part of the village residential area, and
• not part of the Bolesworth land allocated for Phase 1 and Phase 2

There appears to be no justification for including the field in the settlement boundary but doing so has real implications for the residents of Millbrook Meadow, in particular those on the western side of the development who have only recently paid a premium to face the field, which the developer promised in writing would be returned to pastureland.

We request that the settlement boundary is redrawn in line with public statements from the Tattenhall Parish Council to exclude the field immediately to the west of the Millbrook Meadow development, as shown on the attached diagram “Settlement boundary – what it should be”. Please would you confirm your agreement to modify the plan as requested.

Also, we would like to be notified of the Council’s decision on whether to accept the Examiner’s recommendation and future progress with the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17191

Received: 23/07/2026

Respondent: Sarah Moscrop

I would like to submit my support for the Tattenhall and District Modified Neighbourhood Development Plan.

I believe the Plan meets the basic conditions and provides a sensible way of planning for Tattenhall’s future. It recognises the need for new housing while identifying where development should take place, rather than leaving decisions to speculative planning applications.

I think it’s a great idea to identify a suitable location and plan for development there. We have to build somewhere, so it makes sense to choose the most appropriate site through a neighbourhood plan that has been shaped by local knowledge and evidence.

I feel the Plan reflects local housing needs, supports sustainable development and will help protect the character of the village whilst still planning positively for future growth.

Please also notify me of the Council’s decision following the Examiner’s recommendations and any future progress with the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17193

Received: 24/07/2026

Respondent: Mrs Paula Malbon

I have been fully engaged in the consultation on the Plan during 2026 and
I am critical of many aspects of it i.e.;
the number of houses to be built
the impact on the safety of the woefully inadequate road system of narrow rural lanes linking the village to the major trunk road
the lack of restrictions on future Developers.
However, I have come to appreciate that the authors have been working under the tight control of those who hold the levers of power and I am reconciled to supporting the plan as a pragmatic response to a flawed mechanism.

Comment

Representation ID: 17194

Received: 26/07/2026

Respondent: Sam Moscrop

I would like to submit my support for the Tattenhall and District Modified Neighbourhood Development Plan.

I think having a neighbourhood plan is the best way to manage the future growth of the village. Tattenhall is going to need more homes over the coming years, but I believe it’s important that development is planned properly and in locations that have been carefully considered.

The plan gives residents, developers and the council a clear direction for the future and I hope it will help ensure new housing is delivered in the right places and in a way that works for the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 17195

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr john bruce

This 2026 Plan departs from the community-approved 2024 version, and I cannot endorse it in its Regulation 16 process.
Key concerns:
• Unsustainable Growth: Envisages a 60% population increase (600 homes), exceeding CWAC targets.
• Developer Bias: Policy 7 closely mirrors local landowner’s current outline application ignoring local community needs.
• Infrastructure Deficits: Ignores critical traffic issues, flooding, and drainage matters prior to development.
• Environmental Impact: Lowers rural density standards and threatens local green spaces without independent oversight
The plan requires an immediate review to mandate strict individual development density caps, independent assessments, pre-planned infrastructure, and formal community approval.

Comment

Representation ID: 17196

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Himsley

The Plan has not addressed the management of any sustainability issues, while it references anticipated future infrastructure, environmental and community needs, the plan is naïve, it’s intent will not survive contact with reality and will not protect the sustainability of the community by ensuring that development remains proportionate to available infrastructure and that cumulative impacts on transport, education, healthcare, utilities and the natural environment are quantified, controlled and managed. Instead, it gives developers the opportunity to ignore the conditions within the plan and to develop the sites as they wish. The wording should be strengthened to ensure delivery of sustainability.

Comment

Representation ID: 17197

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Himsley

I object to the proposed development of approximately 600 dwellings in Tattenhall on the grounds of transport impact, infrastructure capacity, and sustainability and resident safety and security. The proposed development would result in a severe impact on the local highway network, particularly at the A41 junctions, leading to increased congestion, delays, and safety risks. Given that all our feeder routes are rural, with blind bends, width restrictions, high hedges, passing places and heavy agricultural traffic increasingly the traffic density will only increase the already high risk of accidents.

Comment

Representation ID: 17198

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Himsley

I submit there are several significant weaknesses in the community Engagement report particularly around the representativeness of the survey and the strength of the conclusions that are drawn from it and therefore I believe that the overall results are suspect and compromised and should be withdrawn, and another more thorough exercise be carried out with a more detailed analysis of the results.
The responses were self-selecting and not fully representative of the demographic profile or views of the wider community. The findings should therefore be interpreted as reflecting the opinions of respondents rather than the parish population as a whole.

Comment

Representation ID: 17199

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mrs Carole Curphey

The proposed plan extends to an area far in excess of the present village and takes in productive agricultural land. It is only accessed by narrow lanes off the A41 or through Tattenhall Village. These lanes flood after heavy rain at present. Large housing developments would dwarf Tattenhall that does not have the infrastructure or work to support more inhabitants. The road through Tattnehall is difficult to negotiate around parked cars, delivery lorries, the bus and agricultural vehicles causing difficulties. Finally the car park is accessed by a steep sharp turn where vehicles can cause blockage to the main road.

Comment

Representation ID: 17200

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Himsley

I have attached a file containing my comments on, and objections to the Tattenhall and District Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17201

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Himsley

I have attached a file containing my comments and objections to the Tattenhall and District Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the impact the scheme will have on the local road network and the A41 in particular.

Comment

Representation ID: 17202

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr David Himsley

I have attached a file containing my comments and objections to the Tattenhall and District Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the significant limitations and misrepresentation of the results from the Community Engagement Report and that the report should be withdrawn and either rewritten or recommissioned.

Comment

Representation ID: 17203

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David and Jenny Thomson

We gather that there is further need to respond to the draft of the Tattenhall NP. For the mere parishioner, it is difficult to identify the differences between what we commented on in April and the 'revised' document.
Our fundamnetal concerns as expressed in April 2026 still stand. Thus we reiterate below the statements we made then and hope that our concerns will be taken seriously.

We need to emphasise that we still think that a spread of housing across the village, rather than just on the west and south side, is more acceptable. We still feel that the demands of the landowner are behind the Scenario 4 proposal. The parcel of land proposed for 400 houses is still being used as prime dairy cattle grazing land. Cattle have grazed on it 7 times since March 2026.We cannot understand why this vital land should now be turned over to housing other than for pure financial gain.

Our comments from the last round of consultation are set out here:
1. Having reviewed the latest version which the Parish Council has circulated, we have to write to express concern about the radical changes to the original 3 scenarios put forward in the autumn to end up with scenario 4. Our original support was for a spread of housing over the term of the Plan right around the village.

2.Scenario 4 now puts all future housing in 2 specific areas to the west and south of the village and the scale described (400 and 200 houses) is, in our view, disproportionate to the real needs of the village. We feel that the first phase of these proposals is too big in scale (400 houses) and is driven by the demands of the landowner to relinquish a large area of prime agricultural land for commercial profit.

3.We are concerned that, with regard to the second part of scenario 4, this area, also prime agricultural land, will only be made available by the same landowner if the first area in 2 above, is included in the TNP.

4.We do think that there would be benefits to building some properties in the west and south of the village long-term, but on a much reduced scale and as part of several developments around the village, as was suggested in the originally scenarios. The sheer scale of scenario 4 is thus disproportionate to anything previously considered and is unacceptable to us.

5 We also have major concerns about the scale of these proposals on the road infrastructure in the south and west of the village, This is already under pressure with increases in traffic volumes in recent years and as a consequence of the various recent housing developments. In the last 10 years or so, Redrow (95 houses), Tilney Way (33 houses), Gifford Lea (170 apartments rising to 195 shortly) have added to these pressures, plus the advent of home delivery services.

6. The Neighbourhood Plan proposals before us do not recognise the inevitable change to the village road network and the village centre. Accepting that Tattenhall is required to take on more houses, building schemes spread around the village 'map' will ease the pressures on the road network more evenly when exiting or arriving, than all vehicles funnelling in and out of the south and west quadrants.
Accommodating more vehicles through and in the village centre on the scale anticipated is not addressed enough in the Plan. More work needs to be done on how the village centre would cope with the proposals.

7. Pressures created by this Scenario on flood management, drainage, sewerage in the south an west of the village will need serious assessment. Loading all the demands on existing systems on one side of the village seems poorly thought through. Others more expert in these areas will we are sure comment more technically than we feel able at this point. From our perspective,
we see how poorly the drainage systems have coped in recent years and, with the loss of even more grassland, changing to hard surfaces, future flooding problems seem inevitable.

We hope our additional comments, alongside the earlier still relevant ones, will help further deliberation over what is best for our community, Please can you acknowledge receipt of this submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 17204

Received: 27/07/2026

Respondent: Kieran McGarry

I am writing to provide my opposition to the proposed Neighbourhood plan proposed by Tattenhall Parish Council.

The reasons for not supporting the plan are noted below:

• The Plan is in direct conflict with NPPF paragraph 11, 15 (187b) Footnote 65, SOC 5, DM19, DM24, DM25.
• The Plan is in direct conflict with NPPF Paragraph 15 187.
• The proposed site within the Plan is in direct conflict with NPPF Paragraph 11, with no proposals in the plan to remedy the problems such as transport or sustainable growth.
• The proposed quantity of dwellings within the plan is in direct conflict with NPPF 109-118 with no proposals in the plan to remedy the problems.
• Due to the ecological impact and location of the plan, this sits in direct conflict with NPPF Paragraph 15.

As such, the Neighbourhood Plan does not comply with National and local legislation. The PC have actively decided to pursue a location that contains the only Grade 1 and 2 farmland (which is also active) within and around the village. This is in contravention to the NPPF in which areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. Please see below confirmed documentation:

Fig 1.0a [see attachment]
Agricultural Land Classification map Northwest Region (ALC002)

This is further enhanced by the Agricultural Land Classification document noting a minimum of 2.1ha of land are Grade 1 land as per Fig 1.0b.
Figure 1.0b [see attachment]

In addition to the above, the PC have used several items as a means of rejection to previous development sites, that are also within the proposed Neighbourhood Plan including:

• Loss of agricultural land - The PC used this as a means of development rejection, however, the land quality on the proposed plan site is significantly superior, and as such, should not be within the proposal.
• The proposed development in Open Countryside
• Highway Matters - The allowance for 600 houses would have a much more detrimental impact due to the location that the previously rejected 110 property development, that would be significantly closer to local amenities, reducing car usage.
• Rejection of Rocky Lane and Frog Lane as transport routes which are kep elements of the proposed Plan in it's current location.
• Lack of sustainable transport methods - Additional properties and size / location of the Plan (further from the village) would again cause additional private vehicle use in unsuitable village.
• Sewage Treatment capacity would not support an additional 600 properties.

As such, I cannot provide support for the Neighbourhood plan in its current form, and in it's current location and size (Primarily for Phase 1 Works).

Comment

Representation ID: 17205

Received: 28/07/2026

Respondent: Dr Brian Crossley

Please find attached my comments on the current Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17206

Received: 28/07/2026

Respondent: Mr Terry Brownrigg

Please see attached comments regarding the above.

Comment

Representation ID: 17207

Received: 28/07/2026

Respondent: Historic England

Thank you for consulting Historic England, please find our response attached.

Comment

Representation ID: 17208

Received: 28/07/2026

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Please see attached submission from Lexwood Land.

Kind Regards
Alex Wood

Comment

Representation ID: 17209

Received: 28/07/2026

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Simcock

I am concerned about the validity of the Report underpinning the Choice of Site Allocated to Housing. The consultation received 192 responses, representing approximately 10% of the parish population. Responses were self-selecting and therefore may not be fully representative of the demographic profile or views of the wider community. The findings should therefore be interpreted as reflecting the opinions of respondents rather than the parish population as a whole. Ideally, the exercise should be repeated with additional safeguards put in place, with wider advance publicity so that a truly representative picture of the residents can be established. See attached documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 17210

Received: 29/07/2026

Respondent: Inspired Villages (IV)

Agent: Avison Young

Please see attached PDF