Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Search representations
Results for Aber Ltd search
New searchObject
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SEA2
Representation ID: 21677
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
Option SEA3
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
Option WGW2
Representation ID: 21679
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WGW3
Representation ID: 21680
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WGW4
Representation ID: 21681
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option WGW5
Representation ID: 21682
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Option WGW2, this option has two separate unconnected parcels, which do not follow existing field boundaries so it would be difficult to create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW3, this option has three fragmented parcels around the settlement. Two of the parcels relate well to the existing settlement, however, the largest southernmost parcel is detached from Great Wakering and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW4, this option involves a single parcel to the south of the brickworks, which is detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. This option would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
Option WGW5, is located adjacent to the existing settlement but extends further west, which raises concerns with sustainability in terms of accessing facilities and services and the creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary.
The preferred option is WGW1 as this is developed in one location and is close to the High Street, and as such would add to the cohesion of the existing settlement.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Rawreth Industrial Estate
Representation ID: 21683
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.
This site has very good accessibility, with links to the road network and close to the train station.
Instead of developing the whole site for residential; it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.
To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.
This site has very good accessibility, with links to the road network and close to the train station.
Instead of developing the whole site for residential; it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Stambridge Mills
Representation ID: 21684
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
This is an existing employment site, which is in a fairly isolated location within the Green Belt and as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary if this site is developed for residential.
In addition, this site is subject to a high risk of flooding (Zone 3), and its redevelopment for residential would replace a less vulnerable use (employment) with a more vulnerable use (residential).
The preference would be to safeguard the site for employment and see it redeveloped for light industrial use.
This is an existing employment site, which is in a fairly isolated location within the Green Belt and as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary if this site is developed for residential.
In addition, this site is subject to a high risk of flooding (Zone 3), and its redevelopment for residential would replace a less vulnerable use (employment) with a more vulnerable use (residential).
The preference would be to safeguard the site for employment and see it redeveloped for light industrial use.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Star Lane Industrial Estate
Representation ID: 21685
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.
This site is well located with regards the strategic road network and as such it is considered to be a sustainable location
In addition, it is noted that Great Wakering is proposed to have an additional 250 new dwellings as one the preferred housing options (WGW). Combined with the housing proposed with the Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Industrial Estate, would significantly increase the size of the settlement, without providing sufficient employment opportunities. This would increase the level of out commuting and given the characteristics of the District, the majority of this would be by private car.
Instead of developing the whole site for residential, it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.
To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.
This site is well located with regards the strategic road network and as such it is considered to be a sustainable location
In addition, it is noted that Great Wakering is proposed to have an additional 250 new dwellings as one the preferred housing options (WGW). Combined with the housing proposed with the Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Industrial Estate, would significantly increase the size of the settlement, without providing sufficient employment opportunities. This would increase the level of out commuting and given the characteristics of the District, the majority of this would be by private car.
Instead of developing the whole site for residential, it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Star Lane Brickworks
Representation ID: 21686
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.
This site is adjacent to the Star Lane Industrial Estate and well located with regards the strategic road network and as such it is considered to be a sustainable location
In addition, it is noted that Great Wakering is proposed to have an additional 250 new dwellings as one the preferred housing options (WGW). Combined with the housing proposed with the Star Lane Brickworks and Star Lane Industrial Estate, would significantly increase the size of the settlement, without providing sufficient employment opportunities. This would increase the level of out commuting and given the characteristics of the District, the majority of this would be by private car.
Instead of developing the whole site for residential, it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.
To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.
This site is adjacent to the Star Lane Industrial Estate and well located with regards the strategic road network and as such it is considered to be a sustainable location
In addition, it is noted that Great Wakering is proposed to have an additional 250 new dwellings as one the preferred housing options (WGW). Combined with the housing proposed with the Star Lane Brickworks and Star Lane Industrial Estate, would significantly increase the size of the settlement, without providing sufficient employment opportunities. This would increase the level of out commuting and given the characteristics of the District, the majority of this would be by private car.
Instead of developing the whole site for residential, it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.
