Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Search representations
Results for Aber Ltd search
New searchObject
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E18
Representation ID: 21697
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
The proposed employment locations (E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, & E18) are all located within the Green Belt between Rayleigh and Rawreth. There are a number of concerns with this option:
* These locations would be difficult to access by public transport (would be further away from the train station than the existing industrial estate that they seek to replace), which means that it would be in not as sustainable location;
* The locations of new offices in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
* The proposed employment locations would be in an isolated location (Options E17 & E18 more so), within the Green Belt, which would make it difficult to establish a defensible boundary and also contribute to the coalescence of the neighbouring settlements, contrary to the provisions of PPG2.
As Rawreth Industrial Park is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
The proposed employment locations (E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, & E18) are all located within the Green Belt between Rayleigh and Rawreth. There are a number of concerns with this option:
* These locations would be difficult to access by public transport (would be further away from the train station than the existing industrial estate that they seek to replace), which means that it would be in not as sustainable location;
* The locations of new offices in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
* The proposed employment locations would be in an isolated location (Options E17 & E18 more so), within the Green Belt, which would make it difficult to establish a defensible boundary and also contribute to the coalescence of the neighbouring settlements, contrary to the provisions of PPG2.
As Rawreth Industrial Park is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Support
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
North of London Southend Airport
Representation ID: 21698
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
The importance of London Southend Airport is recognised with regards its contribution to the areas economic activity, both in terms of aviation and non-aviation employment and provision needs to be made in order to facilitate its growth.
The importance of London Southend Airport is recognised with regards its contribution to the areas economic activity, both in terms of aviation and non-aviation employment and provision needs to be made in order to facilitate its growth.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E19
Representation ID: 21699
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E20
Representation ID: 21700
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E21
Representation ID: 21701
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E22
Representation ID: 21702
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
These options (E19, & E20, E21, & E22), would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of the brickworks, which are detached from the existing settlement and would extend further south than the existing settlement, very close to the boundary with Southend. In addition, these options would also have a potential conflict with options for the West Great Wakering location (Options WGW3, & WGW4), which proposes all or part of these locations for residential. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would importantly result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E23
Representation ID: 21703
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E23, & E24) would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of Poynters Lane, detached from Great Wakering by existing agricultural land, and would abut the existing built-up area of Southend. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
These options (E23, & E24) would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of Poynters Lane, detached from Great Wakering by existing agricultural land, and would abut the existing built-up area of Southend. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option E24
Representation ID: 21704
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
These options (E23, & E24) would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of Poynters Lane, detached from Great Wakering by existing agricultural land, and would abut the existing built-up area of Southend. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
These options (E23, & E24) would involve a single parcel (of varying size and shape), to the south of Poynters Lane, detached from Great Wakering by existing agricultural land, and would abut the existing built-up area of Southend. These options would not have defensible boundaries and would result in coalescence with the built-up area of Southend, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, these locations would be further away from public transport and existing services and facilities than the existing industrial estate that it seeks to replace, which means that it would be in not as sustainable location. The locations of commercial accommodation in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
As Star Lane Industrial Estate is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.
The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.
The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option KES1
Representation ID: 21705
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
In order to facilitate the residential units proposed for Ashingdon, it is important that 3 ha of land is made available for the expansion of King Edmund School, in order to accommodate the additional children generated by the new housing.
This option would be located at the eastern end of Oxford Road, away from the existing main school buildings and due to the distance would appear as a separate campus, and would result in additional noise and disturbance as the students travel between the buildings.
This option would involve the development extending further east into the surrounding countryside that the residential areas to the north and south, resulting in urban sprawl, and would not create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2. In addition, this option would also conflict with the proposed housing option (SEA2) proposed for South East Ashingdon.
The preferred option is KES3 as this would ensure that the expansion to the school is close to the main school buildings, adjacent to existing residential (to the west), follow an existing field boundary and would enable access from Brays Lane.
In order to facilitate the residential units proposed for Ashingdon, it is important that 3 ha of land is made available for the expansion of King Edmund School, in order to accommodate the additional children generated by the new housing.
This option would be located at the eastern end of Oxford Road, away from the existing main school buildings and due to the distance would appear as a separate campus, and would result in additional noise and disturbance as the students travel between the buildings.
This option would involve the development extending further east into the surrounding countryside that the residential areas to the north and south, resulting in urban sprawl, and would not create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2. In addition, this option would also conflict with the proposed housing option (SEA2) proposed for South East Ashingdon.
The preferred option is KES3 as this would ensure that the expansion to the school is close to the main school buildings, adjacent to existing residential (to the west), follow an existing field boundary and would enable access from Brays Lane.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option KES2
Representation ID: 21706
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
In order to facilitate the residential units proposed for Ashingdon, it is important that 3 ha of land is made available for the expansion of King Edmund School, in order to accommodate the additional children generated by the new housing.
This option would be located to the north of the existing main school buildings and would be seen as an extension to the campus, and would enable access from Brays Lane. However, this option would not follow an existing field boundary to the north and would not create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, this option would also conflict with the proposed housing options (EA1, & part of EA3) proposed for East Ashingdon.
The preferred option is KES3 as this would ensure that the expansion to the school is close to the main school buildings, adjacent to existing residential (to the west), follow an existing field boundary and would enable access from Brays Lane.
In order to facilitate the residential units proposed for Ashingdon, it is important that 3 ha of land is made available for the expansion of King Edmund School, in order to accommodate the additional children generated by the new housing.
This option would be located to the north of the existing main school buildings and would be seen as an extension to the campus, and would enable access from Brays Lane. However, this option would not follow an existing field boundary to the north and would not create defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.
In addition, this option would also conflict with the proposed housing options (EA1, & part of EA3) proposed for East Ashingdon.
The preferred option is KES3 as this would ensure that the expansion to the school is close to the main school buildings, adjacent to existing residential (to the west), follow an existing field boundary and would enable access from Brays Lane.
