UPSVLP 2209
Within the policy MD5, paragraph 10.5.4 states that: The removal of the site from the Green Belt will
provide new strong and defensible boundaries to the Green Belt.
No evidence is provided that backs up this assertion. In fact is it not counter intuitive to suggest that removing land from the Green Belt actually enhances the remaining Green Belt? How will this removal enhance the remaining land? There is insufficient justification here as to why this removal of Green Belt is necessary.
I fail to see how replacing green fields with houses will 'enhance' a Grade II listed property like Thelwall Heyes. Again, this is a statement with absolutely no justification or basis in fact.
The following statement is made within the assumptions of development approval for MD5:
''Transport and accessibility
16. A package of transport improvements will be required to support the development.
Required improvements will include:
a. Ensuring appropriate access arrangements for the site.'
There are no proposals detailed here that explain how these developments will access current road networks. They will likely join the morning exodus, along with those of the proposed MD2 and new warehousing site, into the already overworked M6/M56 interchange at Lymm. No details are easily searchable within the proposal that illustrate the 'significant network improvements' that will be forthcoming to account for this.
Why build so many houses further away from the rail links in the town? Anyone wishing to use the train to work will have to make a car journey to get to the rail stations, enhancing and not easing traffic volumes here. How can approval be given with such vague transport plans? It is not a problem to be dealt with later, it is a clear and pressing concern that needs simultaneous resolution in this author's opinion
To the layman there are a labyrinth of appendices and annexes to the point that a single individual is unable to grasp the whole concept easily. In fact it feels that it is entirely the opposite with so many details and unsubstantiated assertions.
In the interests of conciseness, here are the main points that I feel have failed to be sufficiently addressed by the draft Local Plan:
1.Transport plans need clear definition - just how will the road network cope with the 11000 extra homes and HGV visits to the new economic areas within the southern part of the town?
2.Justification for green belt removal does not reach a high enough threshold to be supported
3. The outcome in which extra houses are approved but no plan for transport is concluded
4. Failure to make use of alternative transport modes eg rail within the plan.
5. Environmental impacts of the plan regarding congestion and air quality