UPSVLP 2564
There is insufficient evidence in the Updated Local Plan documentation that WBC has fulfilled its obligation to "engage constructively? given that feedback in each of the two previous consultations.
It is not an appropriate strategy.
The Updated Local Plan fails to justify fully, on a factual evidential basis, the massive extent of release of green belt land in South East Warrington despite the high level of requests for such justification by South Warrington Residents. The justification for discounting larger scale extensions to one or more of the outlying settlements (section 3.3.16) applies equally to the proposed South East Warrington developments. No consideration has been given to smaller developments around outlying settlements.
The new vision for South Warrington set out in Policy MD2 will generate traffic flow from 2,400 new homes (rising to 4,200 beyond the period of the plan). Traffic flow from/to south Warrington to/from Warrington Town Centre requires passages across the Bridgewater Canal, the Manchester Ship Canal and the River Mersey, which already are congested at many times during the day and often gridlocked at the Manchester Ship Canal crossing pinch points in Stockton Heath, Latchford and the Cantilever Bridge. The safeguarded proposals in Policy INF2 do nothing to alleviate these restrictions in traffic flow. Policy INF2 focuses exclusively on internal road infrastructure, internal walking/cycling routes and access to the A49 and M56 Junction 10. They will do nothing to address the major problem of traffic flow from/to the proposed South East Warrington development to/from the Town Centre and locations further north. The proposed Bridgefoot Link and the Western Link will ease traffic flow around the west of Warrington Town Centre but they will have no significant impact on easing the traffic flow from/to the main areas of South Warrington. The proposed new/replacement for the Cantilever Bridge across the Manchester Ship Canal will have no effect on traffic flow because the connecting roads (Ackers Road and Station Road) are narrow and incapable of taking more traffic.
There is no factual evidential basis for release of the large swathes of green belt land needed to implement Policy MD2.
The scale of the MD2 allocation should be reduced and redistrubuted to the Fiddlers Ferry (Policy MD3) allocation and the outlying settlements. The Plan needs to give more serious consideration of the implications of HS2 and locate development that could take most advantage of the opportunities. The MD2 site should only be allocation if there are significant infrastructure improvements to access the town centre.
The combination of failures in Policy MD2 and Policy INF2 will unnecessarily and permanently destroy green belt land and would place an unrealistic burden on traffic flow between south Warrington and the Town Centre, in direct contradiction with the objective of stated in Policy INF1 (1g). The proposed MD2 development is linked in part to new, local employment developments, the only such development in south Warrington being Policy MD6. It is very unlikely that the number of jobs required to employ the population of the MD2 alloction will be created by the proposed employment allocation at MD6. Hence, the development is likely to create out commuting to access jobs. The plan makes no attempt to address the areas in the borough that would receive most direct benefit from HS2, such as the east side of the borough, or for transport links from business parks around Warrington to/from HS2. If the Inspector accepts the MD2 allocation is necessary then it should only be allowed if there is a direct dual carriageway link between the MD2 development across the Bridgewater Canal; the Manchester Ship Canal to Knutsford Road north of its junction with Wash Lane.
Transport Modelling
The Transport Modelling referred to in the plan concludes that the existing road infrastructure is sufficient to absorb the extra demand arising from Policy MD2. It is very apparent that the modelling was both inaccurate and inadequate. The visible evidence now is that the routes from South Warrington to/from Warrington Town Centre already are heavily congested with long traffic queues in both directions at many times of the day. The Council should have commissioned an independent survey of actual current traffic flow between south Warrington and the town centre in order to inform the infrastructure requirements.
There is no evidence of our specific comments on failure of the 2019 draft plan in relation to failure on soundness and suggested alternatives to the proposals being recorded in the Regulation 19 ?Responding to Representations Report? on 2019 representations. There is no evidence of serious consideration in the Updated Local Plan documentation about the high level of objections raised by South Warrington Residents in relation to the current poor state of north/south traffic flow between south of the Bridgewater Canal and the north-side of Warrington Town Centre. In the 316 page proposal, there only is a throwaway comment, not backed up by any intention or plan, for ?a possible further crossing of the Ship Canal? (as quoted from section 10.2.8).