Respondent name
Rob Wilding (Gladman Developments)
Responses
Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
Vision
Summary of comments

Support for the vision which seeks to provide a strong, sustainable economy that benefits everyone by consolidating Warrington's position as one of the most important economic hubs in the UK, with new housing development that will support sustainable economic growth.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
W1
Summary of comments

Whilst the housing requirement has been reduced since the previous PSVLP, Gladman support the use of 'minumum' houisng requirements and these should not be seen as a cap.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV1
Modification if applicable

Modest uplift in housing number recommended, direct more development to outlying settlements, increase flexibility factor to 20%, modify wording re stepped housing requirement to specify this is a minimum figure. Set out clear timeframes/triggers for local plan review.

Summary of comments

Generally supportive of provisions of Policy DEV1 however feel there may be a case for a modest uplift over the base need to respond to affordability pressures in the Borough. Support for identification of a level of development in outlying settlements, however there would be benefit in directing more development to outlying settlements which would provide greater choice and competition and would allow timely delivery of the larger urban extensions. Encourage increasing flexibility factor to 20%. Stepped housing requirement - lower figure should be treated as a minimum figure. Clearer triggers/timescales should be set out to clarify the need for commencing a local plan review.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV2
Summary of comments

Support for the delivery of affordable housing, it may be appropriate to uplift overall housing target to delivery more affordable units. Nationally described space standards are intended to be optional and are to be provided where there is evidenced need, the case for the requirements is therefore not clear. Support for housing mix being dealt with on a site by site basis. Optional standards for accessible homes must also be evidenced and justified and impact viability needs to be considered.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV4
Summary of comments

Note a shortfall in allocated employment land. The Council should be able to demonstrate that windfall development will realistically come forward over the plan period to cover this.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Summary of comments

Support the exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release. Distinction between flexibility/contingency and safeguarded land - the latter being to ensure Green belt boundaries endure well beyond the plan period. The Council should reconsider its strategy re safeguarded land.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
ENV7
Summary of comments

Unclear how the requirements for all major developments to provide 10% of energy needs from renewable sources aligns with emerging national standards, Future Homes Standard and Part L of the building regulations. The Council should ensure this has been considered fully.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
OS4
Summary of comments

Supportive of allocation of land at Pool Lane and Warrington Road, Lymm. No technical, landowner or viability constraints that would stop the site coming forward for development.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
Omission Site
Summary of comments

Promote land off Abbey Close, Croft as an additional allocation site (2.69ha, at min density of 30dph).

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
Omission Site
Summary of comments

Promote land to the North and South of Camsley Lane, Lymm as an additional allocation site.