Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 12149

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: G L Bradbury & Son

NOR04, NORO3, NOR10
I&O_12663
As a town that continues to increase in size with houses and not business, further consideration should be taken for all the vacant buildings on sites around the town.  There are numerous empty buildings which could be converted into houses/flats or other business development in and around the town centre.  Residential development on or nearer to sites that are already assigned as brown field sites such as the Gadbrook Park, the old ICI works at various sites around the town, seems more logical.  Areas that are already under development, not breaking out on clean agricultural land.  For example, sites like NOR04, NORO3, NOR10 are more suitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 12150

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: G L Bradbury & Son

NOR01
I&O_12664
Sites which have the greater transport routes and facilities to support such development and that will have minimal impact on landscape and neighbourhood. For example, NOR01 would be better for growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 12151

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: G L Bradbury & Son

NOR06 and NOR07
I&O_12665
NOR06 and NOR07; Davenham is a village which has been considered on your plan.  It is a rural village which has already doubled in size over the last 10 years and does not have the infrastructure to support further development.    The roads in and around the village are already congested. It is already a rat-race which traffic trying to cut through the side roads to beat the traffic.  It is extremely difficult to get through the parked cars in a small vehicle, let alone a larger vehicle. This raises safety concerns both for drivers and walkers.  Public transport is minimal and most have to drive to get to the route of the public transport.  Buses are minimal, however if you see a bus trying to drive through the traffic and parked cars , it also raises safety concerns. The village has a few shops and a local school at capacity.  There are no medical facilities such as GPs or Dentist and Leighton hospital is already over capacity. The land which you are proposing on NOR07 and is top quality agricultural land which has been farmed for generations, growing food.  As a country we are only 40% sufficient in food, this has decreased by 20% in 20 years,  we must continue to protect our working agricultural land.  Development must be prioritised on brownfield sites that are already out of production.   40 years ago, agricultural land was taken for Gadbrook Park, half of that site is still vacant and not developed.  These sites are where we should be prioritising for development. The land off Eaton Land, Davenham, since the last developments in the village (Fountain Lane, Beehive Drive) has had a negative impact on the water course.  There isn’t the capacity to take the surface water away.  Joining land has flooded due to water not being able to get away fast enough. Acres of land lying surface water, because pipes and ditches don’t have the capacity to take it away.  A few years ago, houses on Hartford Road were also flooded as a result. The infrastructure at NOR07 is not suitable for residential development. The site boundaries are the river, railway, a deep ravine, and a small single private track approx. 3m wide which is not owned by the land over of the proposed site. There is no access off a main road, this is not a viable option for development. This prime agricultural land hosts barn owls, bats and working badger sets (a protective species which Labour backs, with the stop of the badger cull).  So, the environmental impact would be is huge. It should also be remembered that a High-Pressure Hydrogen (HYNET) gas pipe is planned for the area. I don’t feel comfortable with houses being built close to that. For these reasons, I would urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reconsider the proposed development allocations for Davenham and Northwich.