Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 21697
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
The proposed employment locations (E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, & E18) are all located within the Green Belt between Rayleigh and Rawreth. There are a number of concerns with this option:
* These locations would be difficult to access by public transport (would be further away from the train station than the existing industrial estate that they seek to replace), which means that it would be in not as sustainable location;
* The locations of new offices in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
* The proposed employment locations would be in an isolated location (Options E17 & E18 more so), within the Green Belt, which would make it difficult to establish a defensible boundary and also contribute to the coalescence of the neighbouring settlements, contrary to the provisions of PPG2.
As Rawreth Industrial Park is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
The proposed employment locations (E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, & E18) are all located within the Green Belt between Rayleigh and Rawreth. There are a number of concerns with this option:
* These locations would be difficult to access by public transport (would be further away from the train station than the existing industrial estate that they seek to replace), which means that it would be in not as sustainable location;
* The locations of new offices in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
* The proposed employment locations would be in an isolated location (Options E17 & E18 more so), within the Green Belt, which would make it difficult to establish a defensible boundary and also contribute to the coalescence of the neighbouring settlements, contrary to the provisions of PPG2.
As Rawreth Industrial Park is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.