Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Search representations
Results for Aber Ltd search
New searchSupport
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option KES3
Representation ID: 21707
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 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, which would create a defensible Green Belt boundary, and would enable access from Brays Lane.
The proposed residential option (SEA1), would enable the formation of a Greenway (incorporating pedestrian and cycle routes) between the school and the town centre (to the south), improving the accessibility to the school by means other than private car.
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 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, which would create a defensible Green Belt boundary, and would enable access from Brays Lane.
The proposed residential option (SEA1), would enable the formation of a Greenway (incorporating pedestrian and cycle routes) between the school and the town centre (to the south), improving the accessibility to the school by means other than private car.
Support
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option OS1
Representation ID: 21708
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Agree with Option OS1 which seeks to protect the identified areas of public space. If any of these areas are lost (wholly or in part), it would be necessary to provide replacement areas and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of areas of Green Belt.
In addition, in order to ensure that the proposed new dwellings do not put unnecessary pressure on the existing areas of public space, all the proposed residential allocations should include sufficient areas of public space to meet the needs of the proposed residents.
Agree with Option OS1 which seeks to protect the identified areas of public space. If any of these areas are lost (wholly or in part), it would be necessary to provide replacement areas and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of areas of Green Belt.
In addition, in order to ensure that the proposed new dwellings do not put unnecessary pressure on the existing areas of public space, all the proposed residential allocations should include sufficient areas of public space to meet the needs of the proposed residents.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option OS2
Representation ID: 21709
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Without the level of protection proposed by Option OS1, there would be pressure on these existing areas of public open space to be developed for other uses (including residential). If any of these areas are lost (wholly or in part), it would be necessary to provide replacement areas for those lost, in order to ensure that there was not a shortfall, and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of further areas of the Green Belt.
Without the level of protection proposed by Option OS1, there would be pressure on these existing areas of public open space to be developed for other uses (including residential). If any of these areas are lost (wholly or in part), it would be necessary to provide replacement areas for those lost, in order to ensure that there was not a shortfall, and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of further areas of the Green Belt.
Support
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option CF1
Representation ID: 21710
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Agree with Option CF1 which seeks to protect existing community facilities. If any of these facilities are lost, in order to ensure that there was not a shortfall, it would be necessary to provide replacements and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of areas of Green Belt.
In addition, in order to ensure that the new dwellings do not put unnecessary pressure on the existing community facilities, all the proposed residential allocations should include appropriate facilities (detailed in Appendix H1 of the Core Strategy), to meet the needs of the proposed residents.
Agree with Option CF1 which seeks to protect existing community facilities. If any of these facilities are lost, in order to ensure that there was not a shortfall, it would be necessary to provide replacements and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of areas of Green Belt.
In addition, in order to ensure that the new dwellings do not put unnecessary pressure on the existing community facilities, all the proposed residential allocations should include appropriate facilities (detailed in Appendix H1 of the Core Strategy), to meet the needs of the proposed residents.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option CF2
Representation ID: 21711
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Without the level of protection proposed by Option CF1, there would be pressure on these existing facilities to be developed for other uses (including residential). If any of these facilities are lost, it would be necessary to provide replacement facilities and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of further areas of the Green Belt.
Without the level of protection proposed by Option CF1, there would be pressure on these existing facilities to be developed for other uses (including residential). If any of these facilities are lost, it would be necessary to provide replacement facilities and due to the characteristics of the area this would require the loss of further areas of the Green Belt.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Option SWH2
Representation ID: 25366
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 SWH3
Representation ID: 25367
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 SWH4
Representation ID: 25368
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.
