The consultation period was not long enough to consider all of the information. There were not enough WBC run presentations to attend with ongoing limitations due to the pandemic. The consultation period is at odds with the still to be announced Northern Powerhouse Rail/HS2 project - such a route will have a major impact on the local plan. The Government has stated there will be changes to the Local Plan process, but the current Warrington Local Plan does not appear to have flexibility built in.

Whilst it may be necessary to release Greenbelt to achieve targets for new homes, the overall numbers of homes stated in this version of the plan can at this present time be considered to be excessive & could be reduced. The plan should allow for this, and be clear that the larger areas planned for release (South East Urban Extension, Thelwall Heys) should only be released if absolutely necessary - if the need reduces these areas should be remain as Greenbelt. No exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release. Urban capacity has not been sufficiently considered - in particular the Lever Brothers site. Lymm has seen significant development over the last 40 years, with next to no investment in infrastructure. The current draft Local Plan does not commit to correcting this. There are extremely poor transport links between south Warrington and the Town Centre.

No exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release.

It would seem that release of larger areas of Greenbelt such as the South East Urban Extension would require stronger ?exceptional? circumstances that smaller areas - this is not provided. The Plan must include provision for replacement / serious overhaul of all the Ship Canal crossings.

The proposed Western Link will provide limited / dubious benefit to the majority of South Warrington. It does not appear to be suitable for active travel, and even if it did, it appears the route would be of little benefit to the majority of South Warrington due to placement & egress from the new route. The Plan must include provision for replacement / serious overhaul of all the Ship Canal crossings.

The proposed South East Warrington Employment area offers poor ?value? in terms of employment return against Greenbelt land released. The description provided appears to offer fairly low value distribution / warehouse jobs, with no justification provided for the numbers of jobs. The area would need to be accessed by car due to the complete lack of any public transport, and no suitable active travel routes. The area would add traffic to an already extremely busy motorway junction, putting further load onto already congested roads and complex motorway junctions. Less land could be used to create more higher value jobs.

Urban capacity not sufficiently considered, inparticular Lever Brothers site. Too much Green belt release proposed with justification and no flexibility in the event that not all the land is required. Green Belt must only be developed if absolutely necessary.

Lymm has seen significant development over the last 40 years, with next to no investment in infrastructure. The current draft Local Plan does not commit to correcting this. The state of some of the key active travel routes to main areas (housing areas and village centre to schools) is such that they are not usable by able bodied people for large parts of the year. There have been no new sports fields in 40 years of extensive development. The existing sports fields are of such poor quality with severe drainage issues that they are not usable for large parts of the sports seasons. The proposals for investment & improved drainage are welcome, but should be given a schedule e.g. within a five year window; or could be made dependent on progress of the local plan. Flooding issues must be dealt with. The proposed development in Statham would have been impacted by the closure of the village centre aqueduct for over a week in September 2021 due to flooding (September rainfall was below average in 2021); and Burford Lane Aqueduct is flooding every two months on average since July 2019, with traffic having to divert onto bridges and roads that themselves are simply not suitable. The release of Greenbelt next to Statham School appears to include release of the allotment gardens, with no explanation / alternative provision. It is not clear how existing schools in Lymm will accommodate the level of development proposed.

Lymm has seen significant development over the last 40 years, with next to no investment in infrastructure. The current draft Local Plan does not commit to correcting this. The state of some of the key active travel routes to main areas (housing areas and village centre to schools) is such that they are not usable by able bodied people for large parts of the year. There have been no new sports fields in 40 years of extensive development. The existing sports fields are of such poor quality with severe drainage issues that they are not usable for large parts of the sports seasons. The proposals for investment & improved drainage are welcome, but should be given a schedule e.g. within a five year window; or could be made dependent on progress of the local plan. The Lymm Tanyard Farm / Land off Thirlmere Drive sites must be provided with all weather active travel routes to both Lymm Village Centre, the closest primary school(s) and Lymm High School. This could be via a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the Bridgewater canal, and / or upgrading of the canal towpath to an all weather cycle route. It is not clear how existing schools in Lymm will accommodate the level of development proposed.

It is not clear how existing schools in Lymm will accommodate the level of development proposed. Leisure facilities in South Warrington are already lacking.

The overall funding gap on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan suggest that a significant proportion of proposed infrastructure may not get delivered, the plan shows no measurable commitments for the vast majority of projects. The level of detail provided is insufficient for the audience to determine whether good value is being delivered, or even if what may be delivered may be fit for purpose. e.g. playing field improvements would need to include facilities for girls / ladies changing & toilet facilities, but such a basic provision is not covered.