The Plan already indicates that one of the most significant problems for Warrington is the dependency on car travel. Yet the plan fails to adequately address how car travel will be mitigated when introducing such a quantity of new homes in an area that does not feature any practical mode of public transport. The primary route into Warrington is through the town of Stockton Heath which already suffers congestion and introduction of further traffic will represent an unacceptable degree of disruption to the village. I must also add that introduction of further housing in Appleton without the further highway would substantially increase the risk of injury for cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Conversely however, if further highway were to be introduced, it would most likely serve to increase the traffic in the area rather than reduce congestion or ease access. Introduction of such further traffic is concerning as the area currently represents a green lung for Warrington separating the town centre from the congestion and air/noise pollution caused by the M56/M6. The introduction of a further, substantial highway and capacity increases at the M6/M56 junction , in a bid to serve the area would also inevitably give rise to a rat-run for traffic linking the M56 and M6, increasing ocngestions and air and noise pollution in the area.

Greenbelt clearly serves a fundamental purpose for the environment and introducing a proposal to replace such a valuable part of our borough with industry, road and (assuming) infrastructure and imposing such an obvious detriment to the green space and the wildlife is something that is, frankly, embarrassing for those that proposed this Plan and devastating to the current residents of Warrington. Even a proposal that simply delays consideration to remove Green Belt would be construed as more reasonable. This would again afford opportunity to drive development of Brownfield sites which, generally, offer a much reduced contribution to the quality of the environment than that of Green Belt. there is a substantial amount of noise and air pollution that emanates from the M56 and M6, and this index area serves to create a barrier between those motorways and the Town centre. Removing the area from Green Belt, will also remove this natural barrier that affords protection to Warrington from the said air and noise pollution. In addition to this, there is such a substantial array of wildlife and natural habitat that represents a significant benefit to all residents of Warrington and other visitors to the area, and a feature that really contributes to the quality of life for Warrington?s residents and visitors.

The proposal would entirely alter the identity of Appleton. The unique hamlets of Appleton Thorn, Wrights Green, Dudlows Green and Grappenhall would be amalgamated under the proposals. There would inevitably be no distinguishable features to separate out the individual hamlets and would remove the very appeal of the same for the residents and any prospective purchasers. It is absolutely devastating to see the Plan reflecting that, within the Plan period, the idylic suburbs housed in Greenbelt with such an array of wildlife, character and greenspace would be transformed into new-build housing. There would thereafter be no identity to continue to preserve and applications for any further urban sprawl or development would likely be approved seeing a drastic and irreversible increase in development in the area.

I would respectfully propose that allowing such a Plan to proceed would entirely undermine the Greenbelt and the Greenbelt boundary. Less than 6 years previous, a Plan deemed the area suitable for Greenbelt status and it is difficult to see what has changed in respect of this. In order to show that the necessary threshold of ?exceptional circumstances? has been met the Plan would have to include adequate explanation as to how the developments on Brownfield site are exhausted, or will be exhausted, before Green Belt can be released. Additionally, the Plan does not appear to account for Brownfield and regeneration opportunity that may present within the Plan period, particularly in light of the massive increase in home working that was driven by Covid19 and the foreseeability of office closures which will result in easy opportunities to renovate into flats and other affordable housing within the Plan period. Until this is addressed further, the Plan cannot be construed as sound. Absence of necessary infrastructure to Brownfield sites is not sufficient reasoning to justify release of Green Belt. NPPF is clear on this point that the only mechanism that would trigger the necessary threshold is if the use of Brownfield sites had been exhausted.

Should the Plan have proposed improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational and field play provision, I would comment that the current recreational facilities are ample for the present community and ?improved? access would only be necessary if there were an increase in housing. This would fall outside the definition of compensatory and would fall within the ambit of necessary infrastructure. Should there have been a proposal for new/enhanced green infrastructure, I would again repeat that this would fall more within a definition of necessary infrastructure, rather than compensatory. In terms of woodland planting, there Plan should be including indication as to where this will take place. Generic proposal is not sufficient. Unless this falls within the immediate vicinity of the affected area, this would not be construed as compensatory. The same applies to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital, unless there is a clear proposal as to what compensatory improvements will be introduced, the release of Green belt should not be permitted. This is fundamentally because once the Green belt status is removed, the developers will no longer have any tie to provide such compensatory improvements and will seek to develop the land in the manner that primarily suits their benefits and needs.