Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Search representations
Results for Aber Ltd search
New searchObject
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as being suitable for housing
Representation ID: 21568
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Whilst it is accepted that a number of existing employment sites may be appropriate for redevelopment for alternative uses, it is not considered that for all four sites this represents the most appropriate option; particularly when the proposed replacement employment sites are not in as sustainable locations. In addition, a number of the proposed employment sites would not satisfy the locational requirements of PPS4.
Whilst it is accepted that a number of existing employment sites may be appropriate for redevelopment for alternative uses, it is not considered that for all four sites this represents the most appropriate option; particularly when the proposed replacement employment sites are not in as sustainable locations. In addition, a number of the proposed employment sites would not satisfy the locational requirements of PPS4.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option NLR1
Representation ID: 21569
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option NLR2
Representation ID: 21570
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option NLR4
Representation ID: 21571
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option NLR5
Representation ID: 21572
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.
The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.
In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WR2
Representation ID: 21573
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WR2 is detached from the settlement and as such is not considered to be a sustainable location and there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WR4 would result in ribbon development along Hall Road and would not have a defensible boundary to the north, contrary to PPG2.
Option WR2 is detached from the settlement and as such is not considered to be a sustainable location and there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WR4 would result in ribbon development along Hall Road and would not have a defensible boundary to the north, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WR4
Representation ID: 21574
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WR2 is detached from the settlement and as such is not considered to be a sustainable location and there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WR4 would result in ribbon development along Hall Road and would not have a defensible boundary to the north, contrary to PPG2.
Option WR2 is detached from the settlement and as such is not considered to be a sustainable location and there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WR4 would result in ribbon development along Hall Road and would not have a defensible boundary to the north, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WH1
Representation ID: 21577
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WH1 although has a defensible boundary in the form of the woodland to the north and west, however, it does extend unnecessary into the Green Belt when you consider that there is a suitable Brownfield option (WH2).
The boundaries to Options WH3 & WH4 have been drawn arbitrary around the existing settlement and as such there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WH2 is the preferred option in this location as it would result in the redeveloped of previously developed land and create a defensible Green Belt boundary.
Option WH1 although has a defensible boundary in the form of the woodland to the north and west, however, it does extend unnecessary into the Green Belt when you consider that there is a suitable Brownfield option (WH2).
The boundaries to Options WH3 & WH4 have been drawn arbitrary around the existing settlement and as such there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WH2 is the preferred option in this location as it would result in the redeveloped of previously developed land and create a defensible Green Belt boundary.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WH3
Representation ID: 21579
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WH1 although has a defensible boundary in the form of the woodland to the north and west, however, it does extend unnecessary into the Green Belt when you consider that there is a suitable Brownfield option (WH2).
The boundaries to Options WH3 & WH4 have been drawn arbitrary around the existing settlement and as such there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WH2 is the preferred option in this location as it would result in the redeveloped of previously developed land and create a defensible Green Belt boundary.
Option WH1 although has a defensible boundary in the form of the woodland to the north and west, however, it does extend unnecessary into the Green Belt when you consider that there is a suitable Brownfield option (WH2).
The boundaries to Options WH3 & WH4 have been drawn arbitrary around the existing settlement and as such there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WH2 is the preferred option in this location as it would result in the redeveloped of previously developed land and create a defensible Green Belt boundary.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WH4
Representation ID: 21580
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WH1 although has a defensible boundary in the form of the woodland to the north and west, however, it does extend unnecessary into the Green Belt when you consider that there is a suitable Brownfield option (WH2).
The boundaries to Options WH3 & WH4 have been drawn arbitrary around the existing settlement and as such there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WH2 is the preferred option in this location as it would result in the redeveloped of previously developed land and create a defensible Green Belt boundary.
Option WH1 although has a defensible boundary in the form of the woodland to the north and west, however, it does extend unnecessary into the Green Belt when you consider that there is a suitable Brownfield option (WH2).
The boundaries to Options WH3 & WH4 have been drawn arbitrary around the existing settlement and as such there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option WH2 is the preferred option in this location as it would result in the redeveloped of previously developed land and create a defensible Green Belt boundary.
