The population numbers used are out of date, there are more up to date numbers available which are lower, and official figures predict population growth at a much lower level, particularly taking into account the changes following Brexit and the covid pandemic.
Taking this into account there is no justification for the plan to exceed the calculated need, and certainly no requirement to add a further flex. Bearing in mind the changing economic situation, the uncertainty over future working arrangements, retail choice and the declining retail situation (many empty units across town) it makes sense to keep any build and changes to the town to the minimum.
Greenbelt should not be considered or used until all possible brownfield sites have been actually built upon. It is wrong to allow the build in the ?green? areas when we have so much under utilised areas within current brownfield areas across the town.
In the same way that the population growth figures are not justified, the employment proposals are not backed by any meaningful economic strategy for the area.
The industry employment area proposed for the SE corner of the area, is proposed for a large area of greenbelt, There is no reason for changing the use of greenbelt, warehousing is not a sustainable long term employment option (offering in the main low skilled roles rather than green economy or high skilled), with many roles becoming autonomous in the longer term. Any employees working there will have to use local roads which are not fit for an increased level of traffic and there is no real solution given to this. There is plenty of warehouse space across the NW, you only have travel along the M6 and M62 to see we are already bordered on the north side of the town, we cannot allow ourselves to become completely surrounded. It would be a blot the landscape for something that will not enhance the value of our town. The roads around the area are not fit for further traffic and this is not the type of employment that is required. From your own assessment of employment land needed, Omega has already exceeded the requirement for the town. The planning application for Stobarts has already been rejected at Minister level, why do you think it is correct to continue to include the proposal Six56 within this plan. The motorway junction is already overloaded, there is nothing in the plan in how to overcome this.
There are already empty units at Barley Castle, at Riverside and at Junction 9, we have to start actively using these before considering building more, why aren?t we offering incentives to release this into employment or housing stock? Why are we allowing useful brownfield and such as the old Vauxhall site to go into storage when it could have been put to good use for housing or employment? The exceptional circumstances for use of the greenbelt are not met.
Unchecked housing sprawl will destroy the unique character of each village, the BC has admitted there is no money for infrastructure, and the money will also be needed for additional schools, shops, health facilities, public transport links, roads (in place prior to the building). Proposing housing in Thelwall is uncalled for and not a good use of green space. In the plan there is no justification on why this plot has been picked (it seems to have moved from a plot in Lymm ? why?), there is no thought to the road situation, there is no easy way in or out in of this area, having the A56 and canal, and will only cause safety issues and/or congestion. There is no space in local primary schools or with GPs or dentists. The A50 already gets backed up whenever there are issues on the M6, adding additional housing will only make this worse.
There is no full plan for the proposed building in the South areas, roads have not been mapped, everything is "concept" only, how can the local population give full comment on the plan without details - there is no confirmation what is happening with the hospital, the local tip, a traveller site.
The town already has air pollution issues which are dangerously high in places, it has been highlighted by the World Health Organisation as dangerous and in breach of national safety levels. This is a long term issue for the health of the population, and increasing possible HGV movements will only exacerbate the issue. This plan does not address any environmental issues. Whilst it is accepted the warehousing is being positioned on the outskirts of town, if the motorways are busy the HGVs will use local roads to keep moving (they already use local village roads which have weight restrictions).
Loss of greenbelt will mean a loss of habitat for local wildlife, the Government has a plan to increase the number of trees planted across the nation to improve the environment, using our greenbelt is in opposition to this national plan.
Warrington has a major issue with flooding, there is nothing in plan that will help with this, and further building will only exasperate this situation.
The WWL has been left in the plan despite changes to the ?housing? requirement for this area. There is no justification for this link road, it will only encourage all through traffic to avoid the toll bridges and use Warrington instead ? increasing our pollution. It will bring no economic benefit, despite the very high cost, it has been proven to reduce journeys by the smallest margin for local people and so cannot be justified.
The swing bridges in Grappenhall and Stockton Heath need urgent repair and refurbishment, this needs attention before thinking of further crossings across the water.
Where is the plan around utilising the over 1,000 empty residential properties in the town, using a % of these would negate the need for using a number of the greenfield sites proposed.
The success of the plan relies on a mass movement of the population from vehicle to public transport, cycling and walking. No evidence is presented on how this will happen, in fact bus travel is falling in the area so it is likely unattainable (and the bus company is not fit for purpose).
Whilst I accept that we need a plan to stop the developers continually push for housing in our green areas, I wish to formally register that I disagree with this plan. It needs to be reset to the very minimum against target, focused on social housing and affordable housing in brownfield areas first to meet the actual needs of existing town residents.
The population numbers used are out of date, there are more up to date numbers available which are lower, and official figures predict population growth at a much lower level, particularly taking into account the changes following Brexit and the covid pandemic.
Taking this into account there is no justification for the plan to exceed the calculated need, and certainly no requirement to add a further flex. Bearing in mind the changing economic situation, the uncertainty over future working arrangements, retail choice and the declining retail situation (many empty units across town) it makes sense to keep any build and changes to the town to the minimum.
Greenbelt should not be considered or used until all possible brownfield sites have been actually built upon. It is wrong to allow the build in the ?green? areas when we have so much under utilised areas within current brownfield areas across the town.
In the same way that the population growth figures are not justified, the employment proposals are not backed by any meaningful economic strategy for the area.
The industry employment area proposed for the SE corner of the area, is proposed for a large area of greenbelt, There is no reason for changing the use of greenbelt, warehousing is not a sustainable long term employment option (offering in the main low skilled roles rather than green economy or high skilled), with many roles becoming autonomous in the longer term. Any employees working there will have to use local roads which are not fit for an increased level of traffic and there is no real solution given to this. There is plenty of warehouse space across the NW, you only have travel along the M6 and M62 to see we are already bordered on the north side of the town, we cannot allow ourselves to become completely surrounded. It would be a blot the landscape for something that will not enhance the value of our town. The roads around the area are not fit for further traffic and this is not the type of employment that is required. From your own assessment of employment land needed, Omega has already exceeded the requirement for the town. The planning application for Stobarts has already been rejected at Minister level, why do you think it is correct to continue to include the proposal Six56 within this plan. The motorway junction is already overloaded, there is nothing in the plan in how to overcome this.
There are already empty units at Barley Castle, at Riverside and at Junction 9, we have to start actively using these before considering building more, why aren?t we offering incentives to release this into employment or housing stock? Why are we allowing useful brownfield and such as the old Vauxhall site to go into storage when it could have been put to good use for housing or employment? The exceptional circumstances for use of the greenbelt are not met.
Unchecked housing sprawl will destroy the unique character of each village, the BC has admitted there is no money for infrastructure, and the money will also be needed for additional schools, shops, health facilities, public transport links, roads (in place prior to the building). Proposing housing in Thelwall is uncalled for and not a good use of green space. In the plan there is no justification on why this plot has been picked (it seems to have moved from a plot in Lymm ? why?), there is no thought to the road situation, there is no easy way in or out in of this area, having the A56 and canal, and will only cause safety issues and/or congestion. There is no space in local primary schools or with GPs or dentists. The A50 already gets backed up whenever there are issues on the M6, adding additional housing will only make this worse.
There is no full plan for the proposed building in the South areas, roads have not been mapped, everything is "concept" only, how can the local population give full comment on the plan without details - there is no confirmation what is happening with the hospital, the local tip, a traveller site.
The town already has air pollution issues which are dangerously high in places, it has been highlighted by the World Health Organisation as dangerous and in breach of national safety levels. This is a long term issue for the health of the population, and increasing possible HGV movements will only exacerbate the issue. This plan does not address any environmental issues. Whilst it is accepted the warehousing is being positioned on the outskirts of town, if the motorways are busy the HGVs will use local roads to keep moving (they already use local village roads which have weight restrictions).
Loss of greenbelt will mean a loss of habitat for local wildlife, the Government has a plan to increase the number of trees planted across the nation to improve the environment, using our greenbelt is in opposition to this national plan.
Warrington has a major issue with flooding, there is nothing in plan that will help with this, and further building will only exasperate this situation.
The WWL has been left in the plan despite changes to the ?housing? requirement for this area. There is no justification for this link road, it will only encourage all through traffic to avoid the toll bridges and use Warrington instead ? increasing our pollution. It will bring no economic benefit, despite the very high cost, it has been proven to reduce journeys by the smallest margin for local people and so cannot be justified.
The swing bridges in Grappenhall and Stockton Heath need urgent repair and refurbishment, this needs attention before thinking of further crossings across the water.
Where is the plan around utilising the over 1,000 empty residential properties in the town, using a % of these would negate the need for using a number of the greenfield sites proposed.
The success of the plan relies on a mass movement of the population from vehicle to public transport, cycling and walking. No evidence is presented on how this will happen, in fact bus travel is falling in the area so it is likely unattainable (and the bus company is not fit for purpose).
Whilst I accept that we need a plan to stop the developers continually push for housing in our green areas, I wish to formally register that I disagree with this plan. It needs to be reset to the very minimum against target, focused on social housing and affordable housing in brownfield areas first to meet the actual needs of existing town residents.