EV17 - Background Paper: Settlement Boundary Review

Object

I am instructed by [redacted] to object to the revision of the urban area boundary as proposed by WW7. As the agent who originally orchestrated the development of what is now known as [redacted] what is now proposed is illogical and unacceptable. The frontage bungalow which stood at the front of what was a nursery was retained and the estate development road run in alongside it such that adequate visibility splays could be achieved onto Barnes Lane. The entirety of the nursery secured planning permission and the front five plots were developed at the same time as the entire road was built. The boundary fence with the adjoining school defined the urban edge. The remaining plots were developed at various later dates. The assertion that the road has anymore permanence than any dwelling on this site is erroneous. Whilst at the present date and in the foreseeable future, development economics would not support redevelopment of the whole of this site again, if at some future date such was proposed it could just as readily include the alignment of the road and dwellings on both sides. My client wishes to see this proposed modification deleted and the status quo retained.

PO18

Object

Settlement Boundary Review The Settlement Boundary Review should have also considered the effect of the proposals for increases in the amount of employment development at Daedalus. It is wholly inappropriate to continue to include the Daedalus employment areas as outside the urban area and as part of the Strategic Gap. This is recognised in the Landscape Assessment which, on page 136, states: “The area for assessment also excludes the Daedalus Airfield Strategic Development Allocation at the southern end of the area, which will effectively lie within the urban settlement boundary following proposed future redevelopment.”

PO16

Object

Large Format Response - Ref0055

SO31

Object

Large Format Response - Ref0054

SO31

Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0053

SO31