As a Resident of Appleton I wish to object to three key aspects of this plan.
Firstly, the environmental conditions imposed on developers for a 10% reduction in carbon emissions vs existing standards are wholly out of line with renewed UK government focus on carbon emissions reduction, and will be insufficient to meet the councils own climate emergencies stated in the last 2 years. For the UK to reach Net Zero by 2050, long terms plans such as this will need to set far more stringent conditions on developers and on the council?s own energy plans. The means to do this are already in development, such as blue hydrogen from the nearby HyNet cluster, no mention of which is visible in this plan, as well as green hydrogen and renewable electricity. A district heating network is mentioned, however no provision is made as to the energy source.
Secondly, the use of designated green belt land is stated as being fully justifiable in plan, however the evidence provided is vague to nonexistent. It is clear that additional housing will be required to support the economic growth goals, however redevelopment of brownfield sites within the town boundary is not given sufficient focus as a viable alternative, which could actually be a cheaper and more environmentally friendly solution. It?s fantastic that the Fiddlers Ferry site has been incorporated, and yet the same arguments used by the council in this plan has not been applied to other areas in desperate need of redevelopment that could really enhance the town. The environmental impact of this loss of green belt land has not been considered or demonstrated in this report and needs to be evidenced.
Thirdly, the alternatives to the South East Warrington Urban development have been discounted too easily without sufficient justification. For example, while the character of Winwick is upheld as an example of why an extension to the north has been excluded, no mention has been made of the impact to the character of the semi-rural villages of Stockton Heath, Appleton and Grappenhall, all of which will suddenly become subsumed into a suburban sprawl. Elimination of eastern areas on grounds of protection of brick clay deposits is also not a valid argument. If green belt land is to be taken to the south east, and then this low value deposit is mined, two areas of green belt will be destroyed. Again, the impact on the existing villages is small compared to the low value of the mineral deposits. Finally a statement is made with no justification as to why the green belt between Warrington and Widnes must be preserved, although the transportation links into the town centre from that area should be significantly cheaper as there is no requirement to cross major waterways.