NWP supports sub-section 9. to policy DEV4, which provides support for other uses within employment areas provided that the development relates to ancillary services (which will support the employment area by making it more sustainable, viable and/or attractive) or the site is longer suitable or viable for employment uses.

The tests set out at sub-section 9. of the policy and there to ensure that any proposal for a non-employment use would be to the benefit of an employment area and will not undermine viability locally or the overall spatial strategy of the local plan. These are robust tests, there to ensure that any alternative development proposals within employment areas will not undermine the employment objectives of the local plan. The text of sub-section 10. states that it refers to alternative uses that are acceptable. If a use is deemed acceptable then there should be no further policy test to satisfy. There is no justification for a further requirement to consider all opportunities for an element of employment use. Such a requirement could only be justified if it were in the context of an applicant seeking to make the case for a mixed-use development where an entirely non-employment use scheme is deemed to be not in accordance with sub-section 9. of policy DEV4.

The supporting text refers to open countryside and environmental assets, including sites of international, national and local importance for biodiversity, high value agricultural land, the wetland nature recovery network and Strategic Green Links. The draft policy text also refers to Strategic Green Infrastructure (sub-section 1.), Strategic Green Links (sub-section 2.) and the Greenway Network (sub-section 5.). The draft local plan proposals map identifies locations that are considered to be either Strategic Green Links or part of the Greenway Network. The draft policy and supporting text are not clear on how sites are assessed for identification inclusion as part of the Green Infrastructure Network and whether this is limited to Strategic Green Links and the Greenway Network, as defined by the draft proposals map. The broad ranging terminology used in the draft policy and supporting text and on the proposals map does not provide for a policy that can be effective, having regard to the test of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the Framework. It is not clear from the draft policy and supporting text whether the protection the policy seeks to afford (at sub-sections 5. and 6.) is intended for Strategic Green Links and the Greenway Network as defined on the draft proposals map, or some wider network of green infrastructure. There should also be a clear distinction between policy DC3 and policy DC5. Policy DC5 is concerned with open space, sport and recreation and ensuring that a comprehensive range of sport and recreation facilities are provided across the borough. Criterion e. of sub-section 5. Is not justified in its cross-reference to policy DC5. Policy DC5 is concerned with seeking to secure appropriate levels of public open space for sport and recreation, and any tests associated with this are not directly relevant to the securing of new green infrastructure. Any requirement for the provision of new green infrastructure should have regard to the purposes of identifying land as either Strategic Green Links or part the Greenway Network. Whilst there might be some spatial cross-over of land that is identified as protected open space (policy DC5) and land that is identified as either Strategic Green Links or part the Greenway Network (policy DC3), the justification for identification of protected land is different between policy DC3 and policy DC5 as the protection afforded is pursuant to different objectives. There is no justification for open space being afforded the blanket protection afforded by policy DC3; simply by virtue of land being identified as open space under policy DC5.

The supporting text to policy DC5 is clear that it is concerned with access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation. The policy is concerned with the health and well-being of borough residents, also referring to community cohesion and opportunities for active travel. The objectives address quality of life exclusively. The policy is concerned with the enjoyment of open spaces by borough residents, and its objectives are very different to policy DC3 which has a much broader remit focussing on the environmental reasoning for identification of a Greenway Network and Strategic Green Links. It is not justified for criterion a. of policy DC5 sub-section 2. to state that new open space created will be afforded protection in accordance with policy DC3. Open space (existing or new) is not necessarily part of the Greenway Network or Strategic Green Links to which policy DC3 relates, and there is no justification for all identified open space to be protected as if it were. As criterion a. of sub-section 2. identifies, open space will be afforded protection by criteria (7) of the policy which deals specifically with seeking to avoid the unacceptable loss of existing open space, sport or recreation facilities for non-recreation purposes. There is no justification for open space being afforded the blanket protection afforded by policy DC3; simply by virtue of land being identified as open space under policy DC5.

Further interrogation of the draft local plan proposals map confirms that land at Birchwood Boulevard is not designated as either part of the Greenway Network or Strategic Green Links (policy DC3). Figure 4.3 illustrates the absence of any specific policy DC3 annotation in this location, and it is therefore interpreted that the land is included in the DC3 / DC5 Open Space annotation as an area of open space (policy DC5). The land under the control of NWP can only be included as part of the (policy DC5) open space annotation on the draft local plan proposals map by virtue of it being considered as a natural/seminatural greenspace (criterion d. Natural/Semi-natural greenspaces of sub-section 1. Open Space Strategy to draft policy DC5). However, policy DC5 id clear that its purpose is to seek to ensure: The land under the control of NWP does not make any contribution to the range of sport and recreation facilities provided across Warrington. Its inclusion within the policy DC5 annotation on the draft local plan proposal map is not justified, as it does not perform the function which policy DC5 is intending to make provision for. Its identification as open space is also in conflict with its identification as an existing employment area. Whilst the land does not currently accommodate built development, it is part of the existing employment area and is appropriately identified as such on the proposals map. Future proposals for development of land in existing employment areas are appropriately determined in accordance with local employment land policies and local development management policies, having regard to material considerations including national planning policy and guidance. An open space designation of this site is not justified, and therefore not sound, as the land in question does not perform an open space function having regard to the objectives of policy DC5.