Planning Permission for this site was granted at appeal on 9/11/21 for its development in form similar to the proposed allocation. As such the plan should be amended to notate the site as a commitment rather than an allocation and the Policy thus deleted. If, for whatever reason the proposed allocation remains relevant, then amendments are required to make the Plan sound.

The policy is overly long and verbose, many of the matters raised are detailed points for the application and determination stage. The policy is negatively phrased and is not positively prepared. As a result of this negativity, the housing trajectory of the plan does not anticipate housing delivery on this site within the first 5 years of the plan. Peel Hall is the most investigated and worked up of the development areas allocated in the plan (as a result of the 2 recent planning appeals on the site) and the development of homes on the site should be included in the first 5 years of the trajectory.

?of up to 1,200 new homes?? This wording is negative and not positive planning. It places an artificial ceiling on the capacity of the site.

Requires highway improvements ?as agreed by the Council and Highways England?. It is not appropriate for a policy to require a particular party to give their agreement.

Requires highway improvements ?as agreed by the Council and Highways England?. It is not appropriate for a policy to require a particular party to give their agreement.

Queries the programme and funding for the delivery of the primary school and other community infrastructure to be ?agreed by the Council? before the first phase of the development is permitted to come forward.

Policy states ?A range of housing tenures, types and sizes, as identified in Policy DEV2, should be provided ???.?. DEV2 does not identify a range of housing types and sizes, it states that residential development should provide a mix of different housing sizes and types and should be informed by the Borough-wide housing mix monitoring target.

requires ?no access and egress from Poplars Avenue, except for public transport, active travel, emergency services and a minimal number of dwellings fronting the access links? The recent public inquiry into an appeal on this site (March 21) confirmed the acceptability of some access onto this road (albeit not an exact, agreed quantum).

Policy 4.3 repeats the requirement for the Council and Highways England?s ?agreement? for the highways mitigation package.

unclear and imprecise. It requires other necessary network improvements on the Local and Strategic Road Network as identified by an appropriate Transport Assessment. The policy assumes that such improvements are necessary before an assessment has been conducted.

vague and unspecified; it refers to the development changing ?the character of these established residential areas?. There is no reference within the plan as to the character assessment appropriate for the consideration of harmful change to these areas.

The policy provides that there should be a major new park ?to provide a proportion of the open space and recreational needs of the development as well as providing a wider resource for north Warrington.? It is not clear from the wording whether land is intended to be allocated for a park to serve the needs of north Warrington, or whether the wording seeks to note that the park which provides for the needs of the development will also be a wider resource for north Warrington.

Part 31 is unclear. The extent of the contributions required is not clear. Any contribution should be limited to that which meets the tests set out in regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

refers to the delivery of ?a new road connecting the development to the Local Road Network? No information on this road is set out in the plan, nor is the route of the road shown. This requirement is unjustified and is unsound; there is no evidence to demonstrate that there is a requirement for a new road to connect the development to the Local Road Network.