Respondent name
Rebecca Dennis (Taylor Wimpey)
Responses
Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
SA
Legally Compliant
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

SA does not achieve the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development because it fails to provide adequate weighting across the three strands of sustainable development. SA fails to take account of 1,113 homes per annum as a reasonably alternative high level growth option.

Modification if applicable

The sustainability appraisal must be weighted to that environmental, social and economic considerations are given the same weight. The sustainability appraisal must consider 1,113 homes per annum as a high level growth option.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
HRA
Legally Compliant
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

Does not allow the Council to ascertain that ?Policy MD3 ? Fiddlers Ferry? would not adversely affect the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. Also does not consider alternative solutions to ?Policy MD3 ? Fiddlers Ferry

Modification if applicable

There must be an assessment of the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar arising from ?Policy MD3 ? Fiddlers Ferry'. There must be an assessment of alternative solutions to ?Policy MD3 ? Fiddlers Ferry?.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
Whole Plan
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

Unresolved neighbouring issues still to address.

Modification if applicable

The Council must address unresolved neighbouring issues.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV1
Sound
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

The Council have failed to consider how many homes would be required to support the employment land requirement of 316ha and have not demonstrated that the proposed housing requirement at 816 homes per annum would not lead to unsustainable patterns of on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV1 ? Housing Delivery? is justified or sound. The Council have failed to consider a housing requirement that would align with the employment growth targeted by the Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership (?the LEP?), which is an exceptional circumstance to go beyond the minimum local housing need ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV1 ? Housing Delivery? is positively prepared or sound. The claimed housing land is overly optimistic, and it cannot be concluded that the claimed housing land supply will meet housing needs ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV1 ? Housing Delivery? is effective or sound.

Modification if applicable

Consideration needs to be given to the number of homes would be required to support the employment land requirement of 316ha so that it can be concluded that the employment land requirement does not lead to unsustainable patterns of commuting. Consideration needs to be given to a housing requirement which would align with the employment growth targeted by the LEP so that it can be concluded that the housing requirement is the most appropriate.

Summary of comments

The Council have failed to consider how many homes would be required to support the employment land requirement of 316ha and have not demonstrated that the proposed housing requirement at 816 homes per annum would not lead to unsustainable patterns of on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV1 ? Housing Delivery? is justified or sound. The Council have failed to consider a housing requirement that would align with the employment growth targeted by the Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership (?the LEP?), which is an exceptional circumstance to go beyond the minimum local housing need ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV1 ? Housing Delivery? is positively prepared or sound. The claimed housing land is overly optimistic, and it cannot be concluded that the claimed housing land supply will meet housing needs ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that?Policy DEV1 ? Housing Delivery? is effective or sound.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV2
Sound
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

It cannot be concluded that affordable housing targets will be met ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV2 ? Meeting Housing Needs? is effective or sound.

Modification if applicable

More suitable, available and sustainably located land should be identified for housing, including affordable housing, which is an exceptional circumstance for Green Belt release

Summary of comments

It cannot be concluded that affordable housing targets will be met ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy DEV2 ? Meeting Housing Needs? is effective or sound.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Sound
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

Green Belt release and the housing allocation at Fiddlers Ferry Power Station has not been justified ? it has not been demonstrated that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar and if it does consideration needs to be given to it alternative solutions ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy GB1 ? Green Belt? is justified or sound.

Modification if applicable

See proposed modification to Policy MD3.

Summary of comments

Green Belt release and the housing allocation at Fiddlers Ferry Power Station has not been justified ? it has not been demonstrated that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar and if it does consideration needs to be given to it alternative solutions ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy GB1 ? Green Belt? is justified or sound.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD3
Sound
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

Green Belt release and the housing allocation at Fiddlers Ferry Power Station has not been justified ? it has not been demonstrated that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar and if it does consideration needs to be given to it alternative solutions ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that Policy MD3 is justified or sound.

Modification if applicable

Justification must be provided for ?Policy MD3 ? Fiddlers Ferry? which clarifies what impact it will have of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar and which demonstrates that this is the most reasonable option.

Summary of comments

Green Belt release and the housing allocation at Fiddlers Ferry Power Station has not been justified ? it has not been demonstrated that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar and if it does consideration needs to be given to it alternative solutions ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that Policy MD3 is justified or sound.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD5
Sound
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

Green Belt release and the housing allocation at Thelwall Heys has not been justified ? it has not been demonstrated that it would have ?no harm? on the significance of heritage assets and their setting and if it results in ?less than substantial harm? consideration needs to be given to alternative sites ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy GB1 ? Green Belt? and ?Policy MD5 ? Thelwall Heys? is justified or sound.

Modification if applicable

Justification must be provided for ?Policy MD5 ? Thelwall Heys? which demonstrates that this is the most reasonable option when considering impacts on heritage assets.

Summary of comments

Green Belt release and the housing allocation at Thelwall Heys has not been justified ? it has not been demonstrated that it would have ?no harm? on the significance of heritage assets and their setting and if it results in ?less than substantial harm? consideration needs to be given to alternative sites ? on this basis it cannot be concluded that ?Policy GB1 ? Green Belt? and ?Policy MD5 ? Thelwall Heys? is justified or sound.

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

Objective W1 sets out the strategic objective of delivering 816 homes per year (14,688 homes over the plan period). The supporting text goes on to suggest that 816 homes per annum will support the number of jobs that will be created from Warrington?s future economic growth. It cannot be concluded that this objective is positively prepared, justified or effective (see response to Policy ?DEV1 ? Housing Delivery?).

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

The policy goes states that the Council will seek to provide dwellings that are appropriately sized and arranged to create well designed homes in accordance with Nationally Described Space Standards. There is insufficient evidence to justify this part of the policy, in terms of need, viability and timing and the requirements of NPPG have not been met in this regard.

Paragraph/policy sub

Parts 13 and 14

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

This part of the policy says that the Council will seek, as a minimum, all homes to be provided to Building Regulation M4(2) ?Accessible and Adaptable dwellings? and 10% of new housing to meet Building Regulation M4(3) ?Wheelchair user dwellings?. There is insufficient evidence to justify this part of the policy since the requirements of NPPG have not been met.

Paragraph/policy sub

Parts 15, 16 and 17

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
W2
Summary of comments

Objective W2 seeks to ensure Warrington?s revised Green Belt boundaries maintain the permanence of the Green Belt in the long term. It cannot be concluded that this objective is positively prepared or justified (see response to ?Policy GB1 ? Green Belt?).

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

Land at Stocks Lane is demonstrably suitable for housing development. It is within the control of a national housebuilder and is available for development. It should therefore be considered for Green belt release and a housing allocation which would help the identified issues of soundness with the Plan.