Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 21677
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Unlike Option SEA1, these options (SEA2 & SEA3) do not 'square off' the settlement and as such would not relate well to the existing residential areas; this would also result in an awkward area of Green Belt to the south.
The existence of the gap to the south of these options would also have a detrimental affect on their connectivity with the town centre and would not offer the same opportunities to create new pedestrian and cycle routes along the eastern boundary. This would funnel all vehicle, pedestrian and cycle movements along Ashingdon Road, which would add to the congestion.
Both of these options (SEA2 & SEA3) would also extend further east into the surrounding countryside than the residential areas to the north and south, not only would this result in urban sprawl and would not be able to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Unlike Option SEA1, these options (SEA2 & SEA3) do not 'square off' the settlement and as such would not relate well to the existing residential areas; this would also result in an awkward area of Green Belt to the south.
The existence of the gap to the south of these options would also have a detrimental affect on their connectivity with the town centre and would not offer the same opportunities to create new pedestrian and cycle routes along the eastern boundary. This would funnel all vehicle, pedestrian and cycle movements along Ashingdon Road, which would add to the congestion.
Both of these options (SEA2 & SEA3) would also extend further east into the surrounding countryside than the residential areas to the north and south, not only would this result in urban sprawl and would not be able to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.