Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 21702
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate 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.
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate 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.