Q.56 - Policy BEC1 should be deleted in its entirety for the site specific reasons given in section 2 of my separate letter of objection dated 20th February 2017 together with the accompanying contextual analysis is sections 2 (i) and 2 (ii) of that letter. The site the subject of Policy BEC1 should be replaced by a new site comprising SHLAA site FO2 combined with part of SHLAA site FO8 as described in section 2 (vi) of that letter.
Q.57 - Policy BEC2 should be deleted in its entirety for the site specific reasons given in section 2 (iii) of my separate letter of objection dated 20th February 2017 together with the accompanying contextual analysis in sections 2 (i) and 2 (ii) of that letter. The site the subject of Policy BEC2 should be replaced by a new site comprising SHLAA for site FO2 combined with part of SHLAA site FO8 as described in section 2 (vi) of that letter.
Q.58 - For the reasons advanced in answer to questions 56 and 57 the proposed amendments to the present development boundary for Beckley Four Oaks shown on Figure 73 of the DaSA should not be adopted. The boundary should be amended by incorporating SHLAA site FO2 and that part of SHLAA site FO8 which adjoins the southern boundary of site FO2 as explained in section 2 (vi) of my separate letter of objection dated 20th February 2017.