Loss of green belt is not justified
Whereas it is reassuring to see that the council listened to objections to releasing greenbelt under the previous plan and has reduced the release of green belt land, this does not go far enough. The current plan still proposes to remove 580 hectares of land from the green belt. It is not clear in the plan that the use of brownfield sites will be maximized before release of any future greenbelt. Section 3.3.7 of the plan states that there is a requirement to release green belt land for around 4,500 homes (this is 4,372 homes in section 4.1.10) in order for the council to meet its housing requirement. However, section 3.3.8 states that the plan includes the release of green belt sufficient for 7,060 homes; more than an additional 2,500 homes beyond the plan period. I believe this appropriation of green belt in advance of known housing need is unjustified. I do not believe the council have justified the need for the large employment areas stated in section 4.2.4 and would challenge if a portion of these brownfield sites could be used for housing, thus reducing the need for green belt land. I would also challenge if the environmental impact regarding loss of biodiversity has been fully considered as there is no mention of a full assessment has been carried out regarding rare species of plants and insects, I saw only birds mentioned.
The South East Warrington Urban Extension is not deliverable without improved canal and river crossing points.
The South East Warrington Urban Extension is not deliverable in a way compatible with the council? s stated objective in 3.3.10 that ?Residents will have improved access to the Town Centre?, or in policy INF1 that states ?It would not be desirable to allow proposals which could exacerbate any existing transport impacts or create unacceptable new impacts.?. Access to the Town Centre from this area is restricted by the need to cross the Bridgewater canal, Manchester Ship canal and river Mersey. The main route into town via the A49 is already congested. The plan does nothing to alleviate these pinch points. Adding the proposed 4,200 homes would exacerbate the existing traffic problems and potentially lead to significant negative impact on air quality. If the council wishes to consider additional housing in South East Warrington, the issues of canal / river crossings would need to be better addressed, including safer routes for cyclists and improved public transport. The ? possible further crossing? of the ship canal is sufficient and an additional route across the ship canal should be a prerequisite for any further development south of the ship canal.
The South East Warrington Urban Extension is not compatible with policy DC3-Green infrastructure, where the Council is committed to supporting The Mersey Forest. Large portions of the plan are in areas designated in the Mersey Forest plan as W3-target 30% woodland coverage. It is difficult to envisage how this can be achieved within the small green spaces allowed on the plan.
The council?s vision- outlined in section 3.1.3 states that ?The character of Warrington?s places will be maintained and enhanced with a vibrant Town Centre and main urban area, surrounded by attractive countryside and distinct settlements.? The plan effectively merges the currently distinct settlements of Grappenhall Heys, Appleton and Appleton Thorn into a single conurbation. The isolated green spaces in the plan do not compensate for the loss of continuous tracts of greenbelt that have been available to Residents of the area for recreation up to now.
I would recommend that the council take into consideration the above points and make suitable amendments to the plan before submitting for examination in public.