Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Search representations
Results for Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Distribution
Representation ID: 3953
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance
Agent: Strutt & Parker
We support the concern regarding the effect of "town cramming" on the attractiveness and character of parts of the District. Providing 60% of housing on previously developed land as advocated by Government Policy may be unrealistic in Rochford. A 30:70 split between development on previously developed land and suitable Greenfield locations at the edge of sustainable settlements is also supported. A potential site for housing previously put forward, to the south of Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, would not contribute to town cramming, it is located adjacent to low density residential development in a broad area identified for growth by PolicyH2.
We support the concern regarding the effect of "town cramming" on the attractiveness and character of parts of the District. Providing 60% of housing on previously developed land as advocated by Government Policy may be unrealistic in Rochford. A 30:70 split between development on previously developed land and suitable Greenfield locations at the edge of sustainable settlements is also supported. A potential site for housing previously put forward, to the south of Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, would not contribute to town cramming, it is located adjacent to low density residential development in a broad area identified for growth by PolicyH2.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
General Locations
Representation ID: 3956
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance
Agent: Strutt & Parker
We support the balanced strategy adopted for the settlement hierarchy resulting in Hockley/Hawkwell being positioned at the top tier. This follows Government guidance on location of development set out in PPS3, paragraph 38 stating that the relationships between settlements should be considered in deciding suitable locations for development. Hawkwell is considered to be a sustainable settlement, capable of accommodating development to the south. A potential site for housing put forward during previous consultations, to the south of Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, it is well located in terms of services, facilities and employment opportunities and has good links with Hockley.
We support the balanced strategy adopted for the settlement hierarchy resulting in Hockley/Hawkwell being positioned at the top tier. This follows Government guidance on location of development set out in PPS3, paragraph 38 stating that the relationships between settlements should be considered in deciding suitable locations for development. Hawkwell is considered to be a sustainable settlement, capable of accommodating development to the south. A potential site for housing put forward during previous consultations, to the south of Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, it is well located in terms of services, facilities and employment opportunities and has good links with Hockley.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3958
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance
Agent: Strutt & Parker
We support the broad locations for development detailed in H2 that are in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. We particularly support the indicative level of growth directed towards south Hawkwell. Paragraph 10 and 36 of PPS3, state that to support the Government's objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, housing should be developed in suitable locations, offering a range of community facilities and good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Paragraph 38 states that LDDs should specifically take account of the accessibility of proposed development to existing local facilities, infrastructure and services including public transport.
We support the broad locations for development detailed in H2 that are in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. We particularly support the indicative level of growth directed towards south Hawkwell. Paragraph 10 and 36 of PPS3, state that to support the Government's objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, housing should be developed in suitable locations, offering a range of community facilities and good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Paragraph 38 states that LDDs should specifically take account of the accessibility of proposed development to existing local facilities, infrastructure and services including public transport.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H3 General Locations Post-2021 - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 3961
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance
Agent: Strutt & Parker
We support the broad locations for development detailed in H2 that are in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. We particularly support the indicative level of growth directed towards south Hawkwell. Paragraph 10 and 36 of PPS3, state that to support the Government's objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, housing should be developed in suitable locations, offering a range of community facilities and good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Paragraph 38 states that LDDs should specifically take account of the accessibility of proposed development to existing local facilities, infrastructure and services including public transport.
We support the broad locations for development detailed in H2 that are in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. We particularly support the indicative level of growth directed towards south Hawkwell. Paragraph 10 and 36 of PPS3, state that to support the Government's objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, housing should be developed in suitable locations, offering a range of community facilities and good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Paragraph 38 states that LDDs should specifically take account of the accessibility of proposed development to existing local facilities, infrastructure and services including public transport.
