AB2 Proposal – What to comment

AB2 Land at junction of M6/A500

Two aspects of this proposal : a) the negative impact of the development and b) the loss
of the positive aspects of the site as it is.
Some point to consider: How will the traffic get to and from this site? The site will have
both warehouses and other industrial units. Whilst much of the logistics traffic might only
use the M6 and A500 (when there are no blockages on those roads) but what about the
employees, local service vehicles and vehicles going to and from the industrial units?
All existing access to the A500 is by grade separated junctions (from the M6 junction 15
up to the M6 junction 16) or roundabouts (from the M6 junction 16 to Nantwich). Any
other junction would not be safe. However, a roundabout so close to the M6 junction 16
would cause traffic problems (not to mention the loss of the well used layby).
The plans suggest emergency access off Park Lane. How will they prevent other traffic
using these routes (given that the service slip roads off the Knutsford M6 service area
are used extensively and unlawfully by residents.
The site is a mixture of 3a and 3b agricultural land (3a is amongst the best and most
versatile agricultural land and the 3b provides valuable habitat for wildlife). Can we
afford to lose such land?
The land owner has been receiving public funding to encourage wildlife friendly farming.
This public investment will be lost.
It is also undeveloped land, a very good natural carbon storage area, whilst the
development will increase carbon emissions.
Many of the hedges are very old (appearing on Victorian maps) with a wide range of tree
species in them. They are protected hedges, see Countryside hedgerows: protec�on and
management – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Include sightings, photographs, etc of the wildlife that you have seen on this site.
Include information on your use of the public rights of way on the site (what it means to
you, any spend in local pubs, etc. in connection with your walks on the PROWs).
Do we want more low skilled, low paid jobs in warehousing (which would be under threat
from automation anyway) or do we want high skilled, well paid jobs in the Borough?
The site is right on the edge of the Borough (and the West Midlands region), which
means that economic impact on Newcastle Under Lyme is limited. The few well paid jobs
won’t necessary go to local residents (the promoter has noted that at a distance of one
hour’s commute by road, Junction 16 location has access to an estimated population of
9 million spanning the southern side of Greater Manchester, Cheshire, the northern area
of the Birmingham city region and the Black Country, the wider Potteries area and Derby).
The site is in the Green Belt (moderate contribution) and it is isolated and disconnected
from Audley and Bignal End settlements. It will mean a huge loss of open countryside (an
area as big as the village of Audley and a considerable percentage of the parish).
It is isolated from the main conurbations of Newcastle Under Lyme and Kidsgrove,
creating an urban blot on the landscape.
Due to its isolation, there are no local services nearby.
It is distant from public transport links. Any suggestion that many workers will cycle
several miles to the site, up and down the steep banks between the site and Newcastle,
are deluded.
Part of the site is in Flood Zones 2 and 3 — will any mitigation measures have knock on
impacts?
Housing
The overall NULBC housing numbers cannot be justified:
The population of the Borough is falling (a 0.5% drop from 2011 to 2021) which suggests
a lower Household forecast.
The number of new dwellings built in the Borough in excess of the targets in previous
years (32% over the target from the 2018-19 year to the 2020-21 year) and the excess
in neighbouring authorities. People from Kidsgrove will live in new builds in Golden Hill,
even though it’s technically in Stoke, people from Audley will live the new builds in
Alsager, even though it in Cheshire East and people from Baldwins Gate & Loggerheads
will live in new builds in Market Drayton, even though it’s in Shropshire. The fact the
housebuilding has exceeded the increase in households over the past 10 years in the
Borough.
The number of new dwellings built in the Borough in excess of the targets in previous
years (32% over the target from the 2018-19 year to the 2020-21 year) and the excess
in neighbouring authorities. People from Kidsgrove will live in new builds in Golden Hill,
even though it’s technically in Stoke, people from Audley will live the new builds in
Alsager, even though it in Cheshire East and people from Baldwins Gate & Loggerheads
will live in new builds in Market Drayton, even though it’s in Shropshire. The fact the
housebuilding has exceeded the increase in households over the past 10 years in the
Borough.
The Local Plan should also place greater emphasis on developing brownfield sites at
higher densities, reusing vacant town centre buildings and tackling the waste of
resources that is long term empty homes.
We shouldn’t be building on good quality, carbon soaking, agricultural land that forms the
beautiful countryside that our residents enjoy in their leisure time.
The negative effect that largescale housing proposed would have on the character of,
and wildlife in, our rural areas.
The number of dwellings that can be accommodated on the four sites (270+) identified
are far more than NULBC state are needed (250 – 48 already built or permitted, giving a
need for 202 extra houses). Why is this?
Will any planning permissions for dwellings in the parish granted before the Local Plan is
adopted be deducted from the identified need and designated sites removed? Once the
plan is adopted it would be very difficult to remove sites and any additional permissions
will be in addition to the sites allocated (“windfall” sites)

.
SOME BROAD AREAS YOU CAN COMMENT ON (BASED the NPPF REQUIREMENTS FOR
LOCAL PLAN MAKING):
DO YOU THINK YOU’VE BEEN ABLE TO SHAPE YOUR SURROUNDINGS?
DO YOU THINK YOU’VE BEEN OFFERED EARLY, PROPORTIONATE & EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION?
DO YOU THINK THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE LIMITS OF OUR EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE & COMMUNITY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
DO YOU THINK THAT CONSERVATION & ENHANCEMENT OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, OR MEASURES TO
ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE, HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
YOU THINK THAT A TWENTY YEAR VISION (2020 TO 2040) IS ADEQUATE FOR A PLAN THAT INCLUDES
SIGNIFICANT EXTENSIONS TO OUR EXISTING VILLAGES?
Much is made of the Local Plan being community led and that it should
reflect our communities’ needs, yet the Borough Council seems intent on
ignoring its communities’ voices and pushing through it’s own agenda by
diktat.