Respondent name
George Bedford
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
Whole Plan
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Oral Examination
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

The plan relies upon significant housing being built, mainly away from the town centre, meaning significantly increased demand on existing infrastructure which is, at times, already struggling with the demand. Without a clear plan for additional roads and improvements to existing infrastructure, this is itself proof that the plan is unsound.

The number of houses to be built, while decreased from previous plan, is significantly higher than expected growth for the town population. There is no justification for the number of houses proposed in the plan.

Further, this relies heavily upon the release of huge areas of green belt land. Given the questionable need and obvious lack of justification for the number of houses proposed, it cannot be justifiable to focus on developing upon green belt land ahead of the repurposing of existing brownfield sites in the area (e.g. Fiddler?s Ferry).

The 6/56 development will incalculably damage the surrounding area, both in terms of environmental impact and the character of the existing villages of Grappenhall and Appleton Thorn. Further, there is no clear plan for the increase in traffic this development would lead to at an already overloaded junction. Additionally, the jobs such a development would create would likely be lower paid jobs, meaning that the new houses proposed would most likely not be occupied by this workforce, further exacerbating environmental impact and infrastructure concerns.

Modification if applicable

There needs to be a clear plan for improvement of local infrastructure and the impact of the increased levels of traffic, including new roads and preservation of existing routes, and improvement of public transport infrastructure.

There should also be a clear justification for the number of houses proposed, linked to the projected growth in local population. Additionally, it should be a clear point in the plan that development of brownfield sites will take place ahead of the unnecessary release of green belt land, with the latter only brought into consideration should brownfield site development be completed in full and further housing required to satisfy population growth demand.