Middlewich
Question MI 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Middlewich, as set out in MI 1 'Middlewich' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
16 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support / agreement in principle with suggested policy approach MI1 | Several respondents agree with the overall policy approach to collaborate cross‑boundary and plan pragmatically for Middlewich’s development needs. |
| Need for robust cross‑boundary cooperation with Cheshire East Council | Respondents stress the importance of structured collaboration between Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East councils, including future mayoral governance implications, joint plan‑making, and functional economic market links. |
| National Highways / strategic road network considerations | One submission highlights need for early engagement with National Highways to evaluate impacts on A533, Strategic Road Network, and M6 motorway J18, and ensure future development aligns with transport capacity and resilience. |
| Need for clarity around “pragmatic approach” wording | Another submission requests clearer definition of “pragmatic approach,” ensuring decisions are evidence‑based and reflect cross‑boundary constraints. |
| Argument that CW&C should positively allocate land east of Middlewich to meet unmet needs | Developers and land promoters argue for proactive allocation of land within Cheshire West and Chester—particularly east of Middlewich—for employment and housing, citing Cheshire East’s limited capacity and strong market demand. |
| Evidence of significant employment and housing need in Middlewich | One respondent submits extensive evidence regarding high employment land take‑up, housing delivery rates, and constraints on Cheshire East’s land supply, supporting further allocations within Cheshire West and Chester. |
| Argument that Cheshire West and Chester Council should not allocate land for Middlewich (disagreement) | One respondent contests that effective cooperation with Cheshire East is not possible, advocating alternative spatial strategies for the Salt Towns. |
Question MI 2
What issues should be considered through the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan to ensure the future needs of Middlewich are properly considered?
7 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for opening a train station with sufficient service frequency | Respondent emphasises that delivery of a new train station is important and must include a good level of service. |
| Concerns about overdevelopment of housing and need for transport review | Highlights concern that the area should not be overdeveloped for housing and calls for a review of transport impacts of new development. |
| Need for cross-boundary planning to support Middlewich’s long-term growth | Extensive submission arguing CW&C must work jointly with CE to plan positively for Middlewich’s growth, highlighting commuting patterns, strong employment growth, limited land in CE, slowing housing delivery, labour shortages, and rising house prices. |
| Need to consider Cheshire East’s increased housing requirement and limited supply | Notes CE’s LHN has risen significantly and its supply is only 4.1 years, meaning Middlewich needs must consider both CW&C and CE’s immediate housing pressures. |
| Middlewich is a sustainable settlement capable of additional growth | Submission emphasises Middlewich’s sustainability and cites the funded Middlewich Eastern Bypass expected to support delivery of 1,950 homes and 6,500 jobs. |
Question MI 3
With the Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East Local Plans currently on different timelines, how can any potential future needs for Middlewich be met?
7 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Both councils should agree a clear joint timeline | Respondents emphasise that Cheshire East and Cheshire West & Chester councils should align or coordinate their Local Plan timelines to support effective strategic planning for Middlewich. |
| Need for cooperation and shared evidence | Calls for active cooperation between the two authorities, including shared evidence bases for cross‑boundary planning matters. |
| Cheshire West and Chester Council should proactively plan and allocate land east of Middlewich to meet cross‑boundary needs | One submission argues that Cheshire East cannot meet Middlewich’s development needs alone. CW&C should allocate land—not just safeguard land—to meet housing, employment and infrastructure needs arising from Middlewich, supported by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirements for joint working and Statements of Common Ground. |
| Need to deliver housing adjacent to Middlewich as soon as possible | One respondent highlights immediate housing need and states the site promoted should be allocated now for high‑quality residential‑led mixed‑use development. |
| Support for Cheshire West and Chester Council’s proposal to allocate land around Middlewich | One submission supports the Council’s intention to allocate land around Middlewich to avoid delays. Notes Cheshire East Council will also plan to meet Middlewich’s future housing needs. |
Question MI 4
Could land be safeguarded to be released for development, if a need was established through the Cheshire East Local Plan?
8 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Need robust historic environment assessment | One submission states that any safeguarded/ allocated sites should include a robust assessment of historic environment and setting. |
| Cheshire West and Chester Council should not allocate/ safeguard land for Middlewich – Cheshire East should use own land | One view states that Cheshire East should meet its own needs and Cheshire West and Chester Council should not allocate land for Middlewich. |
| Opposition to any allocations by Cheshire West and Chester Council | One firm objection to Cheshire West and Chester Council making any allocations relating to Middlewich. |
| Support only if justified by evidence | One submission states that safeguarding/ allocations acceptable only if supported by robust evidence. |
| Strong case for allocating land (not safeguarding) to meet Middlewich unmet needs | One respondent argues that Cheshire East cannot meet needs alone, especially employment; Cheshire West and Chester Council should allocate land now to show proactive approach, secure housing, employment and infrastructure benefits. |
| Sites adjacent to Middlewich should be allocated now due to clear Cheshire E housing need | Another respondent argues that land near Middlewich is logical and appropriate for residential-led mixed-use allocation now, not safeguarding. |
| Safeguarding possible but allocation preferred; Council encouraged to allocate more land than required | One submission suggests taking positive approach allocating beyond minimum requirement to meet Middlewich and wider housing needs. |
Question MI 5
What approach should be taken to the ‘Cheshire Fresh’ site and do you have any comments on other land put forward for future allocation around Middlewich?
5 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for A54 northern bypass | One respondent suggests a northern bypass for the A54, indicating infrastructure improvement preferences. |
| Cheshire Fresh site should remain allocated for employment | One respondent states the Cheshire Fresh site was allocated for employment and should stay that way. |
| Concerns about random and unplanned encroachment into countryside | One submissions raises concerns that suggested sites encroach into countryside in an unplanned, scattered manner. |
| Promotion of Holmes Chapel Road site for mixed-use development | Harworth promotes land at Holmes Chapel Road for residential and employment uses, arguing compelling need and suitability. |
| Support for residential-led development on Cheshire Fresh site due to housing need | One respondent argues that the Cheshire Fresh site is appropriate for residential-led mixed-use development due to adjacency to urban area and acute housing need. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.