Objecting to the allocation for a number of reasons: Concern over Appleton merging with Grapenhall village, resulting in individual areas losing their identity and character; impact on the heritage asset of Grappenhall Village; Loss of green space used by many people for recreational activities; failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release; lack of evidence on ecological impact of allocation and concern that there will be a significant impact on existing habitats and wildlife in the area and scepticism over the requirement for biodiversity net gain; concern with impact on drainage and increased run off; concern that local road networks and bridges cannot deal with increased levels of traffic in particular Stanney Lunt Bridge, Lumb Brook Road and Stockton Lane and congestion will increase issues of poor air quality; insufficient detail on crossing over Bridgwater canal and future crossing of Ship Canal; number of homes proposed remains the same as the previous version of the Plan, just over a longer time frame; allocation will provide homes for people commuting to Manchester and Liverpool, particularly given house prices in the area and low quality of employment being proposed in the Plan.

Local Plan is driven by unrealistic growth aspirations to become a ?new city? and not by evidenced needs of the town. The Plan?s housing requirement is not based on most recent data, does not take into account Brexit and is unrealistic given the number of homes per annum that Warrington has delivered over recent years. The green belt satisfied the tests of durability when it was designated and there have been no exceptional circumstances to justify a change from this status. Development need and infrastructure planning are not considered to be exceptional circumstances. The Council has not considered all alternatives. Not all brownfield sites have been used, no consideration has been given to empty properties and brownfield sites that could become available in the future. These would be capable of accommodating the Plan?s housing requirement without Green Belt release. If Green Belt is required then this could come forward if justified through individual planning applications. A shorter plan (twenty years is longer than recommended or used by most authorities) of 10 years would enable a more accurate assessment of true needs for business growth and housing provision, once the current political and economic question marks have largely been resolved. The use of ?sustainable? in this plan is misleading as it does not refer to the environmentally driven sustainability but rather the ability of the houses and business properties built to generate income to provide the services to the area and developer profit. Unclear how the Plan relates to Warrington?s Climate Change Declaration. The local plan does not fit with the growth of other neighbouring areas, and doesn?t seem to be referenced to its place within the planning of the North West economic and residential growth. There is no mention of the future of employment opportunities, considering technology and future changes. This must be considered in a plan that stretches so far into the future. The future of the Western link would appear to be questionable on the grounds of cost and given the removal of Port Warrington and the South-West Urban extension, but it still appears on the plan. There is no detail on how the Town Centre will be regenerated, or preserve the character of our area, both of which are Warrington Council policy objectives. The Highways Agency is particularly concerned about road loading if the current version of the local plan goes ahead, and has the power to veto any of the development plans if they are not satisfied with the safety and loading of the road network. The Council accepts the need for new facilities such as schools and health centres. A new Hospital, refuse tip at Stockton Heath and police resources will also be required. Infrastructure should come ahead of housing. Funding has not been secured for these improvements and it is unclear that NHS, QCC and other bodies are aware of the Council?s Plans. In this case viability and deliverability cannot be proven as required by the NPPF. The 2011 census showed 1 in 6 Warrington residents is over 65, and this figure is likely to rise over the period of the plan, yet there is no mention of care facilities, supported housing etc. to cater for this age group.

The length of the public consultation is considered insufficient to review all of the information produced. The Local Plan document itself is badly written and the maps provided in it and at the consultations are difficult to read, not detailed with regards to key points (such as changes in road layout) and at times contradictory. Concern that many, especially more vulnerable groups, may not be fully aware of the plans and how it may affect them, or how to share their views with the council. Not clear how this resonates with the Council?s Equality and Vulnerable Adults policies. From one of WBCs own documents ?Priority 3: Aging well? ? ?I am treated with dignity and respect and am included in my local community?. This should follow for all residents young and old.