Under 'New Homes' (3) would it be possible to be more prescriptive as to the range of house types etc? In my opinion the house types and sizes should be aligned to any housing needs surveys undertaken for Lymm rather than just saying 'a range'. There is a need for a higher proportion of smaller houses due to affordability issues, housing need and so on in Lymm.
4. Affordable Housing - as these are green belt sites presumably the existing use value of the land (EUV +) is lower (agricultural values). Therefore, surely the planning gain should be higher than the standard Warrington policy? It would seem fairly obvious that a higher proportion of affordable homes could be provided with the sites still remaining financially viable.
6. A google search returned that the average new build density is 31 homes per hectare. This states a MINIMUM density of 30dph. To reflect the sites' locations adjacent to the open countryside surely the density should be a MAX of 30dph? Also, within Lymm most of the existing densities tend to be a lot lower towards the edge of settlement/in areas close to the Green Belt etc. Plots are further apart and so on. The Policy does not go into enough detail in this regard as it needs to be quite specific in my opinion.
Community Facilities: 7 - Lymm does not seem to get much of a share of S106 monies with Lymm High School appearing to attract alot of the share. Some monies should be used to improve existing pitches at the primary schools (drainage is an issue). In addition, there is no gym in Lymm that Residents can use during the day.
Natural Environment: 11) Additional Trees should be planted in order to mitigate increased number of dwellings/cars. On greenbelt land that is to be retained that acts as a buffer/boundary between areas could consideration be given to working with land owners to plant more trees to mitigate pollution and improve air quality?
Transport and accessibility: 15. Cycle paths/walking routes could be improved by the introduction of bridges across the canal in order to encourage active travel routes, especially if a health centre is to be provided at the Rushgreen Road Site. Where ever possible contributions from these sites should be invested within the Lymm Parish in order to compensate for the loss of Green Belt.
17. Public Transport Services - I do not know how it is possible to provide good accessibility to public transport services as the bus service is so poor. Statements in this regard should not be made unless they are deliverable. Contributions should be sought to improve public transport to and from Lymm to Warrington and Altrincham. This should be a priority.
With regards to Rushgreen Road, under Community Facilities how has the size of the primary health care facility been determined? It says a minimum of 1,500 sq m but what is this based on?
For both sites it says that they can be delivered fairly quickly within the timeframe. However, as these are both green belt sites, surely sites situated on brownfield land should be developed first of all wherever possible. Other brown field sites could come forward within the plan period that would mitigate the need to use green belt land. Therefore this does not make sense as development on green belt land should be the 'last resort' and this should be the approach always.