Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Search representations
Results for Pond Chase Nurseries Ltd search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4283
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Pond Chase Nurseries Ltd
Agent: Boyer Planning Ltd
We would generally support the policy and the sequential approach it proposes.
The policy rightly seeks to protect the character of existing residentail areas by resisting the re-development within residential areas for more intensive forms of development.
At the same time whilst we note the preference to encourage residential development at higher densities within the town centre areas, it will be important to ensure that within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document a mix of housing sites to provide a range of housing types that best meet the needs of the District are identified.
Bearing in mind that Urban Capacity Studies have not effectively been replaced by Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA) reference to such a document in Policy H1 is no longer relevant. A key difference between Urban Capacity Studies and SHLAA is the need to ensure that sites identified are deliverable. It is likely that sites previously identified in the Urban Capactiy Site may not now meet the more rigorous test of being available for housing development.
We would generally support the policy and the sequential approach it proposes.
The policy rightly seeks to protect the character of existing residentail areas by resisting the re-development within residential areas for more intensive forms of development.
At the same time whilst we note the preference to encourage residential development at higher densities within the town centre areas, it will be important to ensure that within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document a mix of housing sites to provide a range of housing types that best meet the needs of the District are identified.
Bearing in mind that Urban Capacity Studies have not effectively been replaced by Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA) reference to such a document in Policy H1 is no longer relevant. A key difference between Urban Capacity Studies and SHLAA is the need to ensure that sites identified are deliverable. It is likely that sites previously identified in the Urban Capacity Site may not now meet the more rigorous test of being available for housing development.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4284
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Pond Chase Nurseries Ltd
Agent: Boyer Planning Ltd
We would support this Policy. It is clear that settlement boundaries will need to be amended to meet the District's housing requirement.
Our client's site at Pond Chase Nursery in Folly Lane lies within West Hockley and comprises previously developed land.
Policy H2 cross references to Appendix 1. This identifies a range of infrastructure items required to support development in different locations. Insofar as West Hockley is concerned, the infrastructure requirements include:
Sustainable drainage systems
Public open space
Play space
Link to cycle network.
Insofar as sustainable drainage systems are concerned, a flood risk assessment has been undertaken to support residential development of the site. This indicates that the site lies within Flood Zone 1. The flood risk assessment also showed that the current existing impermeable surface area of the site, reflecting its brownfield nature, comprises 1.7 hectares. It is anticipated that following re-development for residential purposes the impermeable area will be reduced significantly to 0.8 hectares.
The flood risk assessment also identified a drainage strategy for the site which applies the sustainable urban drainage system approach to manage surface water run-off from the site.
Insofar as public open space and play space provision is concerned, an indicative layout plan has been prepared for the site which utilises the existing commercial vehicle access from Folly Lane and provides a separate segregated footpath and cycle route into the site. The site area totals 4.1 hectares of which it is proposed that about 2.1 hectares will be provided for public open space and an area for nature conservation enhancement and about 2 hectares for residential development. The development will include provision for children's play space to meet the "Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play" standard.
Insofar as links to the cycle network are concerned, we are aware of the representations by SUSTRANS to identify two cycle routes passing through the west Hockley area. One of these is proposed to follow Folly Lane and Church Road. The other would require upgrading of public footpaths that extend north from Folly Chase to then join with St. Peter's Road.
Such cycle route provision is supported. Development of the Pond Chase site in the manner proposed would make specific provision for a segregated footpath/cycle route to gain access to the NEAP linked to SUSTRANS proposals.
The Pond Chase Nursery site will consist the Council's in delivering Core Strategy policies.
We would support this Policy. It is clear that settlement boundaries will need to be amended to meet the District's housing requirement.
Our client's site at Pond Chase Nursery in Folly Lane lies within West Hockley and comprises previously developed land.
Policy H2 cross references to Appendix 1. This identifies a range of infrastructure items required to support development in different locations. Insofar as West Hockley is concerned, the infrastructure requirements include:
Sustainable drainage systems
Public open space
Play space
Link to cycle network.
Insofar as sustainable drainage systems are concerned, a flood risk assessment has been undertaken to support residential development of the site. This indicates that the site lies within Flood Zone 1. The flood risk assessment also showed that the current existing impermeable surface area of the site, reflecting its brownfield nature, comprises 1.7 hectares. It is anticipated that following re-development for residential purposes the impermeable area will be reduced significantly to 0.8 hectares.
The flood risk assessment also identified a drainage strategy for the site which applies the sustainable urban drainage system approach to manage surface water run-off from the site.
Insofar as public open space and play space provision is concerned, an indicative layout plan has been prepared for the site which utilises the existing commercial vehicle access from Folly Lane and provides a separate segregated footpath and cycle route into the site. The site area totals 4.1 hectares of which it is proposed that about 2.1 hectares will be provided for public open space and an area for nature conservation enhancement and about 2 hectares for residential development. The development will include provision for children's play space to meet the "Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play" standard.
Insofar as links to the cycle network are concerned, we are aware of the representations by SUSTRANS to identify two cycle routes passing through the west Hockley area. One of these is proposed to follow Folly Lane and Church Road. The other would require upgrading of public footpaths that extend north from Folly Chase to then join with St. Peter's Road.
Such cycle route provision is supported. Development of the Pond Chase site in the manner proposed would make specific provision for a segregated footpath/cycle route to gain access to the NEAP linked to SUSTRANS proposals.
The Pond Chase Nursery site will consist the Council's in delivering Core Strategy policies.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H6 Lifetime Homes - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4285
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Pond Chase Nurseries Ltd
Agent: Boyer Planning Ltd
Whilst it is acknowledged that some residents may wish to adapt homes at different stages in life but that will not be the case for all residents. Indeed it is an unduly onerous and unnecessary requirement for housing development to meet Lifetime Homes standard since it ignores the general movement of people between different housing locations.
We object to the policy in that requires that all new housing meet Lifetime Homes standard. We would agree that a percentage of new housing development coming foward should achieve such a standard but it appears to us it is unduly onerous to require a 100% provision.
Whilst it is acknowledged that some residents may wish to adapt homes at different stages in life but that will not be the case for all residents. Indeed it is an unduly onerous and unnecessary requirement for housing development to meet Lifetime Homes standard since it ignores the general movement of people between different housing locations.
