Legal points
? WBC have not followed rules by looking for alternatives to taking green belt.
? There are several smaller brown field sites around the villages which should have been considered first.
? They have continued to use the same plan for Culcheth Glazebury and Croft as was previously proposed in 2019 and 2017 both of which were rejected.
? Green Belt being considered weak is incorrect. This prime agricultural land acts as a clear boundary between two villages. It is only 5 years since last green belt boundaries were set.
? Taking the planned agricultural greenbelt will mean two villages Glazebury and Culcheth will merge.
? There have been multiple developments built during the time this plan has been evolving and yet we are still expected to give up our green belt for even more houses. Our ward has already fully contributed to the numbers required.
? This parcel of important greenbelt has the main gas supply for Culcheth running through it also the leet that fed the old watermill acts as a natural surface water drain to reduce flooding risks. This too runs through the land.
? No local historic value incorrect ?our ward Culcheth, Glazebury and Croft - First railway ? Historical water Mill ? old water courses feeding said mill. The name Culcheth comes from a Celtic word meaning ?back of the wood? and the first mention of Culcheth is in a survey of the year 1212.. Other listed buildings nearby.
? WBC are not listening to Government who are confirming green belt should not be used.
? Each greenbelt site being taken uses same terminology and reasoning. Very little thought gone into the reasons given.
? Green belt planned to be built on first in direct conflict with the rules.
? Story Homes ? WBC chosen builder have been very active trying to influence local teams by offering money.
? 6 weeks Consultation ? Very poor notification. Most people have no idea what is being planned. Only one location for plan displays and for public to gain information. Halliwell Jones round the back. This exhibition was closed very early on 20th October when consultation didn?t close until 15th November.
? Local boards for each ward had to be collected by each Parish but very little information where and when.
? The paperwork to support the information boards was insufficient for the public to take a copy meaning the parish had to photocopy them.
? Residents don?t all have computers and therefore cannot be expected to be completed online complicated forms. Why wasn?t every Resident sent a letter?

Sound
? The plan total numbers have kept changing each time the plan has been resubmitted. The total number of Residents living in Warrington has reduced over this time as confirmed by census ? the numbers demanded are too high and set to attract from outside of the town. Culcheth Glazebury and Croft are still showing the same numbers for greenbelt without change.
? WBC say they have full support and agreement for their plan from the developer and the landowner. Is that really some formal approval? This is purely financial benefit and no thought about the devastation on our greenbelt.
? No greenbelt is needed to be used to meet the numbers before 15years have passed. The greenbelt must be left until last as it is very likely it won?t be needed. More new homes are needed in the central wards not the periphery due to latter causing more transport issues.
? There is no real need for more houses in Culcheth Glazebury and Croft. The type of property on offer needs to be considered as good quality pensioner homes would release many family homes.
? There is no evidence given that WBC have considered alternatives, but they have continued to push for this same plan yet again.
? WBC have failed to fully consult with all Residents and have actively made it impossible for a good proportion to find out or comment on plan.

Fulfil Duty to cooperate
? WBC stated they will undertake a full and comprehensive programme of consultation.
? The opposition part was only given a few days to read through over 700 pages of the plan before being asked to vote on it going to consultation. This document failed to have page numbering meaning cross-referencing was very difficult.
? The opposition party were only given a formal brief over one week after the consultation started.
? On the first day the website had some issues so did not have access to the plan.
? WBC were told they were omitting a large proportion of the population from this consultation, but they have failed to rectify that.

Culcheth Glazebury and Croft specific issues.
? No consideration at all for alternative plans such as pensioner homes. If carefully planned many who live alone might opt to move to more usable homes releasing many large family homes onto the market.
? No consideration of the large number of homes built during the existence of this plan.
? The greenbelt must be saved as this is important for surface water drain via the natural culvert flowing through.
? Story Homes claim they have rights to 500 homes on the area and WBC have said they will take the remaining Greenbelt rather than leave it isolated.
? 500 homes equate to 1000 more cars, 1000 more children and 1000 more adults minimum.
? The combined sewer running through the villages is over capacity and regularly flood our due to back pressure.
? The Glazebury treatment plant cannot cope and the river Glaze becomes very swollen. Surface water drains in the village struggle to cope and engineering crew both WBC and UU state the system is overstretched already.
? Further homes will guarantee more issues and flooding. Tanking will not help much as the whole system can?t cope now.
? The medical centre is struggling to meet demand and more patients will affect them badly.
? The schools are all oversubscribed now,
? WBC pulled out of all sports provision for our villages leaving the teams to sort out themselves.
? The main roads are all regularly congested and gridlocked so more cars would be impossible to cope with.
? The heavy traffic causes air pollution which affects everyone.
? WBC say they are focusing on building the town centre. This should be prioritised, and people can live where they work rather than live in periphery wards and have to travel.