The response is well thought out and considered.
However with regard to site layout and site size, "pint-pot" comes to mind and given that it is unlikely that the site can be extended or altered in any substantial way the constraining criteria laid out in the response in support of a rejection will be applicable to almost any other proposal (with the exception of the HSG 17 issue relating to sustainable living areas).
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Planning Officers to address the individual issues raised with the applicant and seek resolution rather than to adopt a stance that considers an outright rejection to be the only outcome.
Additionally I feel it would be appropriate to see the ground floor proposals being brought forward in conjunction for consideration with this application.