Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Search representations
Results for Aber Ltd search
New searchObject
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SH3
Representation ID: 21581
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Both Options SH3 & SH4 would involve development to the south of Rectory Road extending the settlement boundary into the open countryside, contrary to PPG2.
Options SH1 & SH2 are the preferred options in this location as they are contained to the north of Rectory Road, within the existing settlement, and would result in a more compact solution. However, part of SH1 (northern part), is at risk of flooding; this area should be excluded from the residential development.
Both Options SH3 & SH4 would involve development to the south of Rectory Road extending the settlement boundary into the open countryside, contrary to PPG2.
Options SH1 & SH2 are the preferred options in this location as they are contained to the north of Rectory Road, within the existing settlement, and would result in a more compact solution. However, part of SH1 (northern part), is at risk of flooding; this area should be excluded from the residential development.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SH4
Representation ID: 21582
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Both Options SH3 & SH4 would involve development to the south of Rectory Road extending the settlement boundary into the open countryside, contrary to PPG2.
Options SH1 & SH2 are the preferred options in this location as they are contained to the north of Rectory Road, within the existing settlement, and would result in a more compact solution. However, part of SH1 (northern part), is at risk of flooding; this area should be excluded from the residential development.
Both Options SH3 & SH4 would involve development to the south of Rectory Road extending the settlement boundary into the open countryside, contrary to PPG2.
Options SH1 & SH2 are the preferred options in this location as they are contained to the north of Rectory Road, within the existing settlement, and would result in a more compact solution. However, part of SH1 (northern part), is at risk of flooding; this area should be excluded from the residential development.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option EA1
Representation ID: 21583
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
This location is further from Rochford Town Centre and train station than other options that are being considered for Rochford, which are considered to more sustainable development options.
Option EA1 is also considered as a suitable location for the expansion of King Edmund School (KES2 & KES3), therefore there is a potential conflict with another key objective of the document.
Option EA2 & EA3, both of these options are located wholly or partly to the north of Brays Lane, and would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
This location is further from Rochford Town Centre and train station than other options that are being considered for Rochford, which are considered to more sustainable development options.
Option EA1 is also considered as a suitable location for the expansion of King Edmund School (KES2 & KES3), therefore there is a potential conflict with another key objective of the document.
Option EA2 & EA3, both of these options are located wholly or partly to the north of Brays Lane, and would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option EA2
Representation ID: 21584
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
This location is further from Rochford Town Centre and train station than other options that are being considered for Rochford, which are considered to more sustainable development options.
Option EA1 is also considered as a suitable location for the expansion of King Edmund School (KES2 & KES3), therefore there is a potential conflict with another key objective of the document.
Option EA2 & EA3, both of these options are located wholly or partly to the north of Brays Lane, and would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
This location is further from Rochford Town Centre and train station than other options that are being considered for Rochford, which are considered to more sustainable development options.
Option EA1 is also considered as a suitable location for the expansion of King Edmund School (KES2 & KES3), therefore there is a potential conflict with another key objective of the document.
Option EA2 & EA3, both of these options are located wholly or partly to the north of Brays Lane, and would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option EA3
Representation ID: 21585
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
This location is further from Rochford Town Centre and train station than other options that are being considered for Rochford, which are considered to more sustainable development options.
Option EA1 is also considered as a suitable location for the expansion of King Edmund School (KES2 & KES3), therefore there is a potential conflict with another key objective of the document.
Option EA2 & EA3, both of these options are located wholly or partly to the north of Brays Lane, and would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
This location is further from Rochford Town Centre and train station than other options that are being considered for Rochford, which are considered to more sustainable development options.
Option EA1 is also considered as a suitable location for the expansion of King Edmund School (KES2 & KES3), therefore there is a potential conflict with another key objective of the document.
Option EA2 & EA3, both of these options are located wholly or partly to the north of Brays Lane, and would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SWH1
Representation ID: 21586
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
It is not considered that this location has good access to public transport (trains) and therefore these residents will be more dependent on the private car; would also question the suitability of the existing road network to cope with the level of traffic associated with the proposed 500 dwellings.
All of these options result in a large addition to the western side of the existing settlement, and although the various options follow existing field boundaries, these vary for the different options, as such it is not considered that this would result in defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SWH2 is at risk of flooding; other options should be considered that remove the potential risk of flooding and the potential threat to vulnerable uses (residential).
Option SWH3 extends further west from the settlement and the existing facilities and services, making it less sustainable that options SWH1 & SWH2. In addition, the northern section of this option does not follow an existing field boundary so would not have a defensible boundary.
Option SWH4 is the only option that extends to the south of Lower Road, which with one exception is the southern limit of the settlement, this is considered to put pressure for further development south of Lower Road, resulting in the settlement spreading in both a west and south direction.
It is not considered that this location has good access to public transport (trains) and therefore these residents will be more dependent on the private car; would also question the suitability of the existing road network to cope with the level of traffic associated with the proposed 500 dwellings.
All of these options result in a large addition to the western side of the existing settlement, and although the various options follow existing field boundaries, these vary for the different options, as such it is not considered that this would result in defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SWH2 is at risk of flooding, the other options should be considered that remove the potential risk of flooding and the potential threat to vulnerable uses (residential).
Option SWH3 extends further west from the settlement and the existing facilities and services, making it less sustainable that options SWH1 & SWH2. In addition, the northern section of this option does not follow an existing field boundary so would not have a defensible boundary.
Option SWH4 is the only option that extends to the south of Lower Road, which with one exception is the southern limit of the settlement, this is considered to put pressure for further development south of Lower Road, resulting in the settlement spreading in both a west and south direction.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SC1
Representation ID: 21587
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.
Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.
These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.
Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SC2
Representation ID: 21588
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.
Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.
These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.
Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SC4
Representation ID: 21589
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.
Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.
These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.
Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.
Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.
Support
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SEA1
Representation ID: 21676
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
This option is located to the north of Rochford with good links to the town centre and the train station.
This option is currently surrounded by residential to the north, south and west and would result in the 'squaring of' of the settlement, which would have a defensible boundary, and coincide with eastern edge of the existing residential areas to the north and south. This would enable the eastern boundary to line up with The Drive (to the south), improving the sites connectivity to the existing areas.
There appears to be a contradiction as the text in the final sentence of the last paragraph on page 44 of the Consultation Document, advises that the proposal does not follow an established boundary so it would be difficult to establish a defensible boundary. However, with this option the eastern boundary of the site could be formed by an area of linear planting, which would also accommodate a Greenway (incorporating pedestrian and cycle routes), linking St Edmunds school (to the north), with the town centre (to the south), improving the accessibility to the school by means other than private car.
In addition, this option which would generate 500 new dwellings would provide additional customers to the retail premises located to the south on Ashingdon Road.
This option is located to the north of Rochford with good links to the town centre and the train station.
This option is currently surrounded by residential to the north, south and west and would result in the 'squaring of' of the settlement, which would have a defensible boundary, and coincide with eastern edge of the existing residential areas to the north and south. This would enable the eastern boundary to line up with The Drive (to the south), improving the sites connectivity to the existing areas.
There appears to be a contradiction as the text in the final sentence of the last paragraph on page 44 of the Consultation Document, advises that the proposal does not follow an established boundary so it would be difficult to establish a defensible boundary. However, with this option the eastern boundary of the site could be formed by an area of linear planting, which would also accommodate a Greenway (incorporating pedestrian and cycle routes), linking St Edmunds school (to the north), with the town centre (to the south), improving the accessibility to the school by means other than private car.
In addition, this option which would generate 500 new dwellings would provide additional customers to the retail premises located to the south on Ashingdon Road.
