UPSVLP 2304
I object to the proposals for a South East Warrington Urban Extension. Specifically the proposal to build 4200 homes on green belt land.
The plan is not sound. My comments are as follows:
1. The figure of 816 houses to be built per year is much higher than the 2018 population growth data forecasts. There is no justification for the use of this figure.
2. The proposed number of houses does not appear to take account of the number of new houses already built in the area (on green belt land), over recent years. The areas of Grappenhall Heys, Appleton Cross and Pewterspear have already seen extensive development and new housing is still being built. The growth figures should not use the current number of houses as the baseline to determine the growth percentage, because extensive development has already happened. The total should consider the number of houses prior to the development in these areas. There is no justification for not taking existing and current developments into account.
3. The land was compulsory purchased by the government in 1974. The planning vision that appeared appropriate to the people involved in the purchase 47 years ago have no relevance today. The current population must be given right to determine what is appropriate in their area in the coming years. There is no justification in 2021 and beyond for the government continuing to own and develop land seized in previous generations.
4. According to the governments own website, ?The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.? The plan proposes the opposite of this and, as such, is not justified.
5. The NPPF demands that there should be ?exceptional circumstances? before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and says that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in ?very special circumstances?.? No exceptional or very special circumstances have been presented in the plan to justify this green belt land development; hence the plan is not sound in meeting the NPPF demands.
6. The NPPF urges LPAs to maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. The plan is not sound in meeting the NPPF demands.
7. Lastly, the Representation form and the consultation process in general is presented in way that can only be fully understood by people with a professional legal and planning background. This appears to be designed to ensure that public opinion can be ignored when it does not fit neatly into what the process considers to be valid objections in the legal planning framework. As a consequence of this, the consultation fails to comply with the duty to co-operate.
I consider the following modifications are necessary to make the Draft Local Plan sound:
1. The plan should be modified to meet the governments own definition of the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. That is to ensure the Green Belt is correctly used to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The plan proposes the opposite of this. I suggest revised wording should confirm the Green Belt will used to prevent urban sprawl and keep land permanently open.
2. The plan should be modified to ensure the NPPF demands are complied with in respect of the requirement for Green Belt boundaries to only be changed in ?exceptional circumstances?. I suggest revised wording should confirm the Green Belt boundaries will only be changed in exceptional circumstances.
3. The plan should be modified to ensure the NPPF demands are complied with in respect of the requirement that inappropriate development that is harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in ?very special circumstances?. I suggest revised wording should confirm inappropriate development that is harmful to the Green Belt will only be proposed and approved in very special circumstances.
4. The plan should be modified to ensure the NPPF demands are complied with in respect that LPAs are required to maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. I suggest revised wording should confirm maximum use of suitable brownfield sites will be made before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
5. The local plan should be modified to re-assess the figure of the number of houses to be built based current population growth data forecasts.
6. The local plan should be modified to re-assess the figure of the number of houses to be built, not by using the current number of houses as the baseline to determine the growth percentage, but consider the number of houses that existed prior to the extensive developments in Grappenhall Heys, Appleton Cross and Pewterspear.
7. The land was compulsory purchased by the government in 1974. The planning vision of 47 years ago has no relevance today. The current population must be given right to determine what is appropriate in their area in the coming years. The local plan should be modified to reflect the opinion of current Residents not the planners in 1974 or those of developers and remote government bodies.