EA - Should other sites be considered?

Only sites with existing industrial usage should be considered for residential development.

Agree that only existing industrial sites should be used for residential development

The Council's identification of a general area of east Ashingdon as potentially suitable for future residential development is supported. However, land immediately to the Rear of Golden Cross Road, Brays Lane and Nelson Road (as identified on the accompanying plan) has not been included in its entirety as a preferred option. The entire site is contiguous with, and physically 'contained' by, existing residential development on three sides and it's eastern boundary does not extend further in that direction than housing in Nelson Road to the North and Brays Lane to the south. This renders the line defensible as a boundary to the Green Belt making the site a natural choice as a least harmful extension to the built up area. Vehicular access is currently available from Brays Lane with possible access also available from Golden Cross Road. Part of the site at its southern end has been included in options EA2 and EA3 but objection is raised to the Councils omission of the greater part of the site. The entire site should constitute a preferred option.

Two sites don't currently appear to be included in the options under consideration:

1. The former Jewson site on Rectory Road could be converted to housing. whilst this is very close to the railway recent developments have been allowed in Magnolia Road. No other industrial units are in this area and the adjacent land is already housing.
2. The former Cherry Orchard Brickworks would be a good location for housing an would avoid additional loading on Ashingdon Road as to would have good outward access to Cherry Orchard Way

OPTION EA4

This option can offer the following:

 Up to 150 dwellings, including affordable homes with a mix of types and tenures;
 Improved access and bus turning circle for the King Edmund School;
 Reserve school land to meet future requirements;
 Public open space;
 Potential to accommodate community/youth facilities if necessary;
 Contributions towards transportation improvements, if required; and
 Appropriate landscaping.

This option accords with the Core Strategy, providing development in an area which has been identified at policy H2 as a broad location for housing. It also accords with policy CLT3 by providing an improved access and bus turning circle and reserve land for the King Edmund School.

Although Option EA4 provides a greater quantum of development than the 100 dwellings identified in the Core Strategy, it is recognised at policy H2 that it will be the Site Allocations DPD through which quantums will be established. The Council recognises that this site is capable of accommodating more than 100 dwellings in their SHLAA and it is understood that the Core Strategy contains conservative estimates for Green Belt sites to ensure that targets are met.

Our detailed analysis has revealed that 150 dwellings can be accommodated on this site, making a valuable contribution towards housing land supply.

In conclusion, it is submitted that a revised site area in accordance with our Option EA4 should be identified as the Council's Preferred Option.