Section 4.3 and in particular figure 52 contains a number of errors in relation to the area located behind 81 to 93 Chesterton Road and the existing access alongside no 81:
a) The plan fails to include existing trees planted on the rear access lane (i.e. behind 81-93)
b) The plan fails to reflect the differing levels of the site and the fact that natural differences have been exacerbated by the reconfiguration of the existing Henry Giles House car park
c) The plan fails to take into account the drop in height of more than 2 metres from the Henry Giles House car park into the rear access lane
d) The plan uses an out of date map which fails to record any of the developments that have occurred at the rear of 81 to 93 in the last 20 years
e) The plan pointlessly includes the rear access lane within the site boundary when this is land occupied by the owners of 81 to 93 Chesterton Road such that they have ownership and when it provides vehicle access to the rear of the properties - it cannot be developed.

2. At 4.3.21 the plan states "The status of the existing access to the rear of Chesterton Road will need to be established" - this can be established by simply checking the land registry which records for ## Chesterton Road "The land has the benefit of a right of way over the passageway at the back leading into Chesterton Road on keeping in repair such portion of the said passageway as abuts on and is co-extensive with the north western boundary of the land in this title".

3. The proposed pedestrian and cycle green link alongside 81 Chesterton Road takes no account of the right of the owners of 81 to 93 to use this route for vehicle access to the rear of their properties, and the need for sufficient width for a turning circle into the rear access lane and into the garage of no 81. It also take no account of the right of the owners of 81 to 93 to park alongside the boundary of 81.

4. The proposed two-storey limit on the south-eastern edge of the site boundary next to the rear access lane relates to land more than two metres higher than the properties 81 to 93 Chesterton Road. Any two-storey building at that location will tower over the existing properties; reduce light; and be out of proportion with the scale and intimacy of the rear of the existing properties. The limit should be only one storey on this part of the site.

5. The proposed 4 and 5+1 storey buildings in the centre of the site are taller than the existing two-storey building at that part of the site - they will tower over all of the properties 81-99 Chesterton Road and 19-31 Albert Street, as well as the properties on Carlyle Road - they would be wholly out of proportion.

6. At 4.3.8 the proposal is stated to be intended to "inform the appropriate scale and massing" in order to result in "a well designed scheme that fits into its context" - I endorse this approach but cannot see that the framework takes this properly into account on the south-eastern boundary. The primary element of this site is the changing level of the site itself - this is not reflected in the framework.

7. The framework should be amended as set out above