Option SEA3
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19536
Received: 29/04/2010
Respondent: A W Squier Limited
Agent: Andrew Martin Associates
OPTION SEA3
This site is similar to, but smaller than site SEA2. It is around 13 hectares and can only accommodate around 300 to 400 dwellings, and would therefore fail to achieve the number of dwellings identified in the Core Strategy.
The comments in relation to SEA2 above also apply to option SEA3.
OPTION SEA3
This site is similar to, but smaller than site SEA2. It is around 13 hectares and can only accommodate around 300 to 400 dwellings, and would therefore fail to achieve the number of dwellings identified in the Core Strategy.
The comments in relation to SEA2 above also apply to option SEA3.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19781
Received: 30/04/2010
Respondent: Stolkin and Clements (Southend) LLP
Agent: Firstplan
Option SEA3, as with Option SEA2, the site extends further east than the current built up area of Rochford. At this point, this site therefore encroaches into the green belt. It will be difficult to create defensible green belt boundaries to the east, south, and part of the north of the site where the site adjoins open fields.
Option SEA3, as with Option SEA2, the site extends further east than the current built up area of Rochford. At this point, this site therefore encroaches into the green belt. It will be difficult to create defensible green belt boundaries to the east, south, and part of the north of the site where the site adjoins open fields.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 21678
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.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 21939
Received: 29/04/2010
Respondent: Mr J Needs & Aston Unit Trust
Agent: Sellwood Planning
Paragraph 5.2 of PPS12 states that DPDs should adhere to the same advice on justification and effectiveness as applies to Core
Strategies. Paragraph 4.36 is particularly cited and this states that the "most appropriate strategy should be adopted when
considered against reasonable alternatives".
It is considered that the emerging DPD does not accord with the advice since some of the options are simply not realistic when
considered against normal land use criteria for selecting sustainable urban extensions. Whilst not necessarily endorsing the strategic location, the following sub options are not seen as realistic and should be discounted
- WR2
- WR4
- WH1
- SC1
- SC2
- SEA2
- SEA3
- WGW2
- WGW3.
Paragraph 5.2 of PPS12 states that DPDs should adhere to the same advice on justification and effectiveness as applies to Core
Strategies. Paragraph 4.36 is particularly cited and this states that the "most appropriate strategy should be adopted when
considered against reasonable alternatives".
It is considered that the emerging DPD does not accord with the advice since some of the options are simply not realistic when
considered against normal land use criteria for selecting sustainable urban extensions. Whilst not necessarily endorsing the strategic location, the following sub options are not seen as realistic and should be discounted
- WR2
- WR4
- WH1
- SC1
- SC2
- SEA2
- SEA3
- WGW2
- WGW3.
Comment
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 22594
Received: 30/04/2010
Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd
Overall RAG rating - Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades required to serve proposed growth
RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS
Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.
Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.