? The plan claims that even the basic infrastructure will not be funded using public money but there is no detailed information in the plan of where the substantial funds that will be need will come from.
? The canals are a major obstacle for any new transport infrastructure, but the plan is vague about crossings for the canals. It only contains suggestions all of which are unfunded.
? There are estimates of ?50m for the Cantilever Bridge to be developed. This is not only unrealistic it would not cover the cost of the housing/land that would need to be purchased.
? New road network in the south of Warrington to support the new development is vague and not detailed and all suggestions are unfunded.
? Some of the infrastructure is 'considered' in LPT4. However this is just a 'wish list' of considerations and has no substance.
? There is no detail of heath and well-being facilities required, how they will be funded or when they will be built. With the scale of housing proposed and the very significant increase in the population of the south eastern part of Warrington this is a major flaw. The same is true of schools provision.
? The WWL (Warrington Western Link) will not help the plan at all. It merely brings traffic to existing bottlenecks whilst adding more traffic from those avoiding Tolls on the Mersey Gateway crossings.
? There is no coherent plan on how to solve existing traffic problems, let alone how to cope with the extra transport caused by ne housing a industrial land.

Warrington is already over burdened with poor air quality. The removal of green space will make air quality much worse, yet the plan argues the opposite. The plan's over reliance on the car and ensuing traffic will exacerbate the situation. No realistic traffic assessments of the proposed development have been undertaken. The loss of habitat for many species has not been considered in any detail.

Official economic growth figures predict much slower growth than that detailed in the Plan and hence there is no justification to use such forecasts in predicting Warrington's housing need.

The economic growth targets have been set by those who have a vested interest in overstating growth predictions for their own purposes (e.g. Warrington & Co. and the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership). The economic growth prediction figures used have come from the LEP without any major proposal to back up such a prediction.

The plan doesn?t meet the 5 criteria for release from Green Belt. The environmental and ecological impact of the loss of Green Belt has not been properly assessed in the revised Plan. The existing Green Belt boundary was confirmed only 7 years ago in a plan that was supposed to be good for 20 years. The plan for the Green Belt release hits south east Warrington disproportionally hard. The Council should look more carefully at brownfield sites in the town and other arears rather than take the easy but irreversible step of using Green Belt. It is wholly unclear how the Council will be able to control the rate of house building once the Green Belt has gone, or to insist on using existing Brownfield sites before using the released Green Belt.

There is no justification for predicted growth, no need for the volume of housing and large volume of employment land. This means there is no justification for the scale of green belt release and it will destroy the landscape and character of my village, totally washing over Stretton with new development. The volume of development will harm to air quality and local ecology and takes no account of the need to reduce our carbon footprint in line with government commitments to tackle climate change. There is no explanation of how the already poor transport infrastructure of south Warrington can cope with increased levels of traffic and no clarity on how the goals outlined in the plan can be delivered.