UPSVLP 2206
The plan is unsound as it is based on unfounded aspirations. Para 3.4.13 concedes that, whilst a NW hub, there is poor internal infrastructure - in particular roads crossing the various canals and rivers. Development is reliant on commuters from proposed housing in the south of the borough to jobs across the borough. The plan states that congestion an pollution will increase as a result. Public transport solutions are aspirational. These need to be planned first or simultaneously to determine housing and business options. The plan concedes that town centre employment is decreasing, leaving hoped for warehousing around M6J20, but no affordable local housing, thus requiring commuting from outside and across the borough.
Legal - it's been issued
Duty to co-operate: I'm providing a response
Realistic road, public transport, and canal crossing proposals need to be included along with appropriate employment with associated affordable housing, schooling, medical, and leisure facilities. This should put more emphasis on brown field sites rather than taking green field sites, which would most likely reduce transport infrastructure needs.
The Green Belt boundaries were confirmed 7 years ago but the plan has not started from the concept of minimising Green Belt usage. Additional housing is proposed to that already approved. The Green Belt buffer between settlements is reduced and the environmental impact of the loss has not been assessed.
The Green Belt land is being offered for cherry-picking for easy-profit larger properties rather than affordable housing with easy public transport access to work locations. Realistic probable work is basically warehousing near M6 J20. Local housing on green belt is likely to be unaffordable for workers.
Legal: it's issued
Co-operate: I'm responding
Employment and housing locations need to be considered. This should place greater emphasis on brown field sites rather than progressively chipping away at the Green Belt for developer profit.
The notes on the town centre indicate that retail is decaying and there are limited job options (para 4.1.28). Although 'tourist attractions' are noted, they really are overrated.
The plan is based on an outdated and outmoded view of the town centre. It needs to consider town centre living (brown field sites) to justify retail development to support inhabitants.
Legal: it's issued
Co-operate: I'm responding
The plan needs to be based on realistic expectations assisted by the plan rather then unfounded aspirations and unjustified pride.
Para 10.10 and policy proposes a health centre. Whilst this is, in itself, desirable, it is expected that existing medical practices will move there. This centralises the service where there is already poor access on a narrow road rather than where there is ready access, even via public transport, and parking.
It is proposed rather than guaranteed.
The development also proposes housing - where there is already poor access and transport. Elsewhere the plan notes that transport issues will most likely deteriorate before they get better. The resolution of this, and other issues, needs to be part of the plan to make it sound.
Legal: it's issued
Co-operate: I'm responding
Transport, access, congestion, schools, leisure facilities and the like need to be guaranteed before aspirational developments.
Paragraph 10.10