UPSVLP 2040
There is no indication of timing about when the required infrastructure will be built. If the houses are built before the roads and facilities then it will cause excessive stress on the existing infrastructure.
There are too many homes planned for this area of the town.
I do not think the "local centre" planned for the Appleton Cross area will fit into the space allocated for it, particularly when car parking is included. When comparing the area of Bridgewater High school with this, on a map, it is clear that a 4 form entry secondary school would not fit on this site.
Compared to the previous plan for south east Warrington the number of houses has not been reduced in proportion to the amount of land used. The planned number of houses needs to be reduced.
It is planned to have a recycling centre in the area, but there is no indication as to where that will be. This this will have an enormous effect on the value of houses close to the centre and should be included in the plan.
The timing of infrastructure changes should be included in the plan so that it is allocated by planners not by developers.
The number of homes to be built should be reduced considerably. This would also allow the facilities at Appleton Cross local centre to be reduced so that they fit into the area allocated.
The location of the planned recycling centre should be included in the plan. This should be well away from any EXISTING houses to ensure existing Residents are not financially affected. Maybe it could be on the industrial estate?
Suggested revised wording: "a maximum of 4,200 homes".
This policy refers to a "minimum of 4.200 homes". This leaves scope for developers to try to make more money by increasing the number still further. It should say a "maximum of 4,200 homes".
MD2.1 part 2
The Council have made assumptions about the number of homes required in the future. Many people disagree with these assumptions and think the figures are too high. Given this difference of opinion it would make sense to develop the brown field sites first and leave the greenfield sites until last - in case they are not needed. Once the greenbelt has been taken away it cannot be put back. Greenfield development should be delayed until after the brownfield sites have been completed.
The Council have made assumptions about the number of homes required in the future. Many people disagree with these assumptions and think the figures are too high. Given this difference of opinion it would make sense to develop the brown field sites first and leave the greenfield sites until last - in case they are not needed. Once the greenbelt has been taken away it cannot be put back. Greenfield development should be delayed until after the brownfield sites have been completed.
This area is much to big and will take a large section of greenbelt land not needed for employment. Given the proximity to the motorway junction it is very likely that a lot of the employees on this site would come from outside Warrington. It is also likely that this will be occupied by distribution and logistics companies (as proposed in the plan) which will mean few employees and a large number of robots and HGVs. The latter will significantly increase the pollution in this area.
Bradley Hall farm and its surroundings should be removed from this area as it is an ancient monument.
This area is much to big and will take a large section of greenbelt land not needed for employment. Given the proximity to the motorway junction it is very likely that a lot of the employees on this site would come from outside Warrington. It is also likely that this will be occupied by distribution and logistics companies (as proposed in the plan) which will mean few employees and a large number of robots and HGVs. The latter will significantly increase the pollution in this area.
Bradley Hall farm and its surroundings should be removed from this area as it is an ancient monument.
This policy refers to a "minimum of 4.200 homes". This leaves scope for developers to try to make more money by increasing the number still further. It should say a "maximum of 4,200 homes". There is no indication of timing about when the required infrastructure will be built. If the houses are built before the roads and facilities then it will cause excessive stress on the existing infrastructure.
There are too many homes planned for this area of the town.
I do not think the "local centre" planned for the Appleton Cross area will fit into the space allocated for it, particularly when car parking is included. When comparing the area of Bridgewater High school with this, on a map, it is clear that a 4 form entry secondary school would not fit on this site.
Compared to the previous plan for south east Warrington the number of houses has not been reduced in proportion to the amount of land used. The planned number of houses needs to be reduced.
It is planned to have a recycling centre in the area, but there is no indication as to where that will be. This this will have an enormous effect on the value of houses close to the centre and should be included in the plan. The timing of infrastructure changes should be included in the plan so that it is allocated by planners not by developers.
The number of homes to be built should be reduced considerably. This would also allow the facilities at Appleton Cross local centre to be reduced so that they fit into the area allocated.
The location of the planned recycling centre should be included in the plan. This should be well away from any EXISTING houses to ensure existing Residents are not financially affected. Maybe it could be on the industrial estate?