Support
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 61206
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Martin Teodorczyk
Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development, but if the Preferred Option occurs the Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development as shown (to be adjusted in the case of part-development of the Preferred Option site).
In any scenario the Settlement Boundary on the northern and western edges should be drawn as shown because of that land's high amenity value with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park.
It is unsustainable to draw construction and scheme traffic through Hatton Park, so the Preferred Option must be accessed directly and primarily from the A4177.
Please refer to my other detailed representations that Hatton Park is NOT suitable for further development and that I do not support any development sites.
IF the Preferred Option is to be imposed, I agree that the Settlement Boundary must be drawn tightly to the existing development to protect the remainder of the Green Belt. In addition any part of the Preferred Option site that is not to be developed (e.g. the northern field nearest Smiths Covert) should also be drawn outside the Settlement Boundary and protected as Green Belt.
In any scenario the Settlement Boundary to the north and west of Hatton Park should be drawn as shown because of its high amenity value as Green Belt. The height rise from the canal and A4177 means that land to the north of Barcheston Drive is highly visible with views across the Green Belt to and from Hatton Park.
It is unsustainable to draw construction and scheme traffic through Hatton Park, so development of the Preferred Option must be accessed directly and primarily from the A4177, with improvements to the A4177 to match.