Option SC1

Rochford district is fast loosing all its rural open spaces, the current highways and infastrucure are at full capacity, including schools and medical services, also public transport is poor to Canewdon, which necessitates high car use to main transport links, places of work and public services.

We believe that this would be the best sight for housing as it would create an extension to the village community without having a direct adverse impact on access in and around the village as this sight would be developed on the two main roads.
HOWEVER, it would mean losing one of the key features of the village which is the most magnificent view overlooking Rochford/ Southend. We also feel empathy and sadness for the residents of Anchor Lane who we know have purchased their homes due to the wonderful locations and views that they have.

Like the residents in Anchor Lane I have to object to development in this area, 60 houses on this field would be so visually intrusive and our view would be totally obliterated. Till now we have enjoyed privacy in our house and garden, i don't believe this would continue should you choose to develop this site as the development would be sprawled across the whole width of the field and we all know eventually the whole of the field would continue to be built on. I live at number 2 Sycamore Way on the corner at the junction of Anchor Lane and Sycamore Way; we paid a premium for this house in 2005 because of the uninterrupted views through to Stambridge and to Southend and Kent on a clear day (lets face it its quite a unique selling point and properties are already extremely difficult to sell in Canewdon in the current climate - what hope will we have in the future without the view to sell it?) There are six of us living here and we frequently have the binoculars out, it is so lovely and unspoilt. Mum and Dad even had a conservatory erected a couple of years ago fronting Anchor Lane which takes in the full panoramic view and all its open character, our visitors always comment and what lovely views we have. These views would be a future developer's dream, i can see it now on their glossy brochure. I think we should all receive compensation if you build here because we will undoubtedly lose value on our homes.

There is no evidence to support 'sustain the rural community' - increase in size could potentially cause a breakdown of the close, personable community spirit that it currently enjoys. Loss of a greenfield site (agriculture) should be avoided until all brownfield sites in the district have been exhausted. This area has potential for further spread towards nearby housing as there are no other natural boundaries between. Loss of views to nearby houses and when leaving the village. Contrary to your statement, there will be 'erosion of the openness of greenbelt' - as per the other options.

To increase the housing in this area will require the roads to be upgraded as they are at their best rural at their worst damaged and dangerous.

It would also require the telephone lines to be upgraded as they are I believe running at full capacity and most people can not get good speeds for internet connections.

It would also require investment into the public transport system as this is patchy and at rush hour times useless!!

After seeing the publication of documents for the Allocations development plan, The CPC decided to hold an extraordinary meeting on 20th April 2010 & invited members of the RDC planning committee to present their plans to the parishioners of the village for the four proposed sites for development of green belt land to accommodate 60 new dwellings. During the meeting it was very clear that some parishioners had very strong negative feelings towards any plans for development on the green belt, & the CPC agrees with this.

Firstly the Canewdon Parish council would like to make it clear that it has already consulted it's parishioners during a recent parish plan & village survey (February 2010) with regard to what parishioners thoughts were as to whether the village could accommodate any new houses. The result of this survey showed us that.

* 73% replied that no new houses were needed in Canewdon.
* 79% of parishioners also replied that more houses in Canewdon would spoil the environment.

The position of the CPC is that we would strongly object to the development of green belt in the village, for reasons as follows.

* The village is almost unique within the RDC borough in that it is a stand alone community
* It is located within an open rural setting surrounded by green belt productive agricultural land.
* There are natural boundaries to the village by way of the access roads from three directions, & on approaching the village you are presented with a pleasant open rural view.
* Any development of the green belt would spoil this view, not only for those whose enjoyment of the countryside will be spoilt by new houses being built obscuring their view, but also for those who enjoy the village for recreational purposes.

Having considered the options proposed & presented by RDC in the allocation plan and if this development is to be forced upon the parish, we have chosen site SC1 as the most suitable, for reasons as follows.

* The site makes it easily defensible from further development of the green belt as there are natural boundaries to three sides by means of highways, an ancient hedgerow and a ditch border,
* (A condition would be the development of a natural recreational land barrier to the south to prevent further future expansion into the green belt.)
* The site is located to the South East of the village & is better supported in terms of access by highway.
* The site is big enough to accommodate the building of 60 dwellings in a manner where density would not present a sprawl.

We would also request the following points to be taken into consideration.

1. To meet the needs of the community, all new housing should include a suitable mix of 1 & 2 bedroom houses/bungalows to enable parishioners to buy a house to downsize, & also to enable first time buyers the opportunity to live in the village where they may have grown up & now want to purchase their own living accommodation.
2. Affordable properties with some part rent, & part mortgage.
3. All dwellings to have designs which are sympathetic to the rural environment.
4. Properties to be offered to parishioners firstly & then to people from other areas.


Additionally the CPC would like to insist on the following conditions being met before planning consent is granted.

* Upgrade of existing primary school to allow for extra pupils.
* Secondary school catchment schools reviewed with provisions for free home/school transport
* Public transport links improved into Rochord, Hockley, Southend & Rayleigh.
* Promise of a recreational barrier between site SC1 & agricultural green belt
* Full survey & upgrade of existing sewage infrastructure (village already has regular sewage blockages)
* Full survey& upgrade of existing fresh water supply (village already has low water pressure)
* Full survey & upgrade of existing electricity supply (village suffers from low voltage & frequent power cuts in winter months)
* Full survey & upgrade of telecommunication facilities (the village is currently poorly supported by broadband & there is no cable network)
* Funding support for rebuild of the community village hall (the hall is currently too small for the village population & requires a new roof)
* Improvement of the junction at Canewdon road & Ashingdon road to include a mini roundabout to improve road safety & ease congestion when exiting the village at peak times of the day.
* 40 mph speed limits to be introduced along Lark Hill road & Scotts Hall road to improve road safety on entering the village.


Finally, there are also three other new site proposals from parishioners which the CPC support for further investigation by RDC planning officers.

1. Land from the south of the village pond, to the northern border of Gardiners Lane, this plot also boundaries the Canewdon School playing field & the village allotments on the West & to the East is a ditch border to Farm land.
2. Land located to the East of the village hall, which is bordered on the south by Lambourne Hall road & Pylon Cottages to the East.
3. Land to the East of Rosemount in Anchor Lane & to the south of Anchor Lane, adjacent to the junction of Gardiners Lane and East across to the field where the public footpath Number 10.

Option SC1 is poorly connected to the existing village. The site is surrounded to the east, south and west by open fields and it would be difficult to provide defensible boundaries along the borders. The development of the site would have a clear impact on the openness of the green belt.

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

I act for Mr Hines and Mr Stammers, the owners of Three Acres and Birch Lodge respectively at Anchor Lane, Canewdon, and am presenting herewith their views on the South Canewdon allocation options in the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document.

Firstly, my clients are pleased that South Canewdon has been chosen as the location for 60 new dwellings under the LDF, as they feel this is an appropriate and sustainable location which add to the viability and cohesion of the Canewdon community. However they also have views on the relative merits of the different options proposed in the document and the arguments put, as follows:

SC1 The document claims that development of this site 'would not erode the openness of the Green Belt and would afford the opportunity for creation of a defensible Green Belt boundary'. We do not see how development of this site without SC3 also being developed could do either of these things, as it lies on the south side of Anchor Lane detached from any adjacent development. As such it intrudes into the Green Belt, and Anchor Lane itself would form a more defensible boundary to the Green Belt than the rear of what would effectively be ribbon development.

The document also states that SC1 has the capacity to provide 'local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements, public transport infrastructure and service enhancements, links to and enhancements of pedestrian, cycle and bridleway networks and sustainable urban drainage' as required by the Core Strategy Submission Document. All of these things could be just as easily, if not more easily, provided by option SC3.

SC2 The document claims that development of this site 'would not erode away the openness of the Green Belt, would add to community cohesion and would not create two distinct communities' though it does concede that it would be difficult to create a defensible Green Belt boundary. Development of this site without SC3 would, however, in our opinion create an isolated development that would do nothing for community cohesion, and certainly would intrude into the Green Belt.

SC3 The document agrees that this site 'is ideally located adjacent to residential settlement, thus enabling community cohesion and maintaining the openness of the Green Belt.' This in our view makes SC3 the best option for the development of South Canewdon, as it offers the possibility of direct links to the existing residential area and local facilities, and Anchor Lane as a firm and defensible Green Belt boundary. The document also mentions that 'the impact on the road leading to St Nicholas Church must be considered', and in this sense new development could present an opportunity to enhance the approach to the church. The 'difficulty of creating a defensible Green Belt boundary' mentioned in the document presumably refers to the rear of development on the west side of the church approach road, and this could be overcome by omitting development of the west side and increasing the density of development on the east side.

SC4 The document concedes that this option 'would be piecemeal and it would be difficult to create a defensible Green Belt boundary'. Also it would create distinct new communities and community benefits would be hard to obtain. We agree with this assessment, and in addition only part of my clients' site would be used, which would be a wasted opportunity.

In conclusion, we consider SC3 to be the best option for the development of South Canewdon, if necessary omitting the land to the west of the church approach road.

Your proposed site for housing development in Canewdon South.

I am writing as requested, since I will be on holiday when the subject is to be discussed in the Village Hall, and I do not have access to the internet.

I have now lived in the village for 20 years, 4 of these at my current address. I am strongly opposed to your first site SC1, as this would bring a lot more traffic to the junction of Anchor Lane and Sycamore Way. You may be aware that most traffic entering the village from the West and the South, arrives at Anchor Lane. At this point all that traffic which proceeds to the east and north eg Althorne Way area, will continue along Anchor Lane. However, most of the traffic entrers Sycamore Way for access to: Sycamore Way, Cedar Walk, Willow Walk, Ash Green, Chestnut Path, Village Green. Upon reaching the High Street, some of it will turn off there into the High Street and some will cross over onto the Prowtings Estate.

Therefore, traffic at the junction of Sycamore Way and Anchor Lane is very busy at peak times. If the houses are all built at this site (SC1) it is very likely that the road to it would come from Anchor Lane, therefore adding to the congestion! Additionally, in the course of time re children attending the local school. Presently there is no footpath at this side of Anchor Lane, it does not start until you are almost at the school gates! If the children have to cross the road at this point it will be an additional hazard!

I also object to the site ref SC4 which to a lesser extent is likely to create the same problems as SC1.

On another relevant issue there are eleven properties, my own and seven detached properties and 2 detached bungalows all in Anchor Lane who will all lose their open views to the south, which has been left 'open' ever since the 'model village' began to take place around 50 years ago.

This would inevitably not only cause a reduction in the value of all these properties, it may also make it difficult in the course of time for a sale to be achieved.

In conclusion, I believe you have overlooked 2 alternatives which are obvious to me. They are

1. The road leading to Scotts Hall Cottages, which could be extended in which case not only would the views remain, none of the traffic would need to enter the village other than to visit 2 shops, 2 pubs, the school and the village hall!

2. There is also a road in existence at Althorne Way, where the houses could be built upon the playing fields, and again none of the traffic would cause much of a problem, as it would not need to come along Sycamore Way. All this providing that the playing field could be sited elsewhere (possibly on your SC1 site).

I recommend that the sites to be used are SC2 or SC3 as they would create the least traffic problems etc.

These options result in a small scale addition of 60 dwellings which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.

Options SC1 is located wholly to the south Anchor Lane, and would utilise the northern part of the field, as such it would not create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.

Option SC2 is located to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church and as such would be separate from the existing settlement; this would make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.

Option SC3 the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church is adjacent to the existing settlement and would increase the cohesion of the settlement. However, like Option SC2 the area to the west of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church would be separate from the existing settlement; and make it difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.

Option SC4 would result in piecemeal development, which would not contribute to the cohesion of the existing settlement and would not have defensible boundaries, contrary to PPG2.

The preferred option would be the area to the east of the road leading to St. Nicholas Church in Option SC3.

Objection to 60 dwellings in Canewdon.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to 60 dwellings in Canewdon.
See paper copy for details.

Paragraph 5.2 of PPS12 states that DPDs should adhere to the same advice on justification and effectiveness as applies to Core
Strategies. Paragraph 4.36 is particularly cited and this states that the "most appropriate strategy should be adopted when
considered against reasonable alternatives".

It is considered that the emerging DPD does not accord with the advice since some of the options are simply not realistic when
considered against normal land use criteria for selecting sustainable urban extensions. Whilst not necessarily endorsing the strategic location, the following sub options are not seen as realistic and should be discounted

- WR2
- WR4
- WH1
- SC1
- SC2
- SEA2
- SEA3
- WGW2
- WGW3.

RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.

Please see attached the following documents, submitted on behalf of our client, Mr Richard Stacey:

1. Report in response to the Allocations DPD, - RW Land and Planning Ltd
(Separate Email) 2. Visual Assessment of South Canewdon - Open Spaces Ltd
3. Illustrative layout (ref: RW005-02-02 revA) - JCN Design

Can be viewed on request

Objection to Site SC1. See paper copy for details.

Objection to the housing in Candewon.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to the housing in Candewon.
See paper copy for details.

Comments on the housing in Canewdon.
See paper copy for details.

Accept the need for increased housing across the Rochford District and support the balanced approach Rochford District Council is proposing.

Preferred option for Canewdon - SC1.

Opposed to the release of any land to the west of the road leading to St Nicholas Church as I think it would create further problems with maintaining the Green Belt.

Two further sites suggested:

1. To the south of the junction of Anchor Lane and Gardeners Lane
2. To the north of Gardeners Lane.

For further details see paper copy.

Objection and comments received regarding residential land allocation in Canewdon.

For further details see paper copy.

My Mum and Dad bought our house mainly because of the wonderful views we have from the rear of the house overlooking Rochford, Southend, Leigh and Kent in the distance. The below picture is the beautiful view from my bedroom.

I love watching the tractors on the fields and I really love fireworks night when I can see fireworks for miles and miles in the distance. I was allowed to stay up last New Years Eve til midnight when again fireworks were exploding in the sky for miles and it's wonderful to see.

I object to mainly SC3 but also SC1 as I do not want to loose this special view and just see houses out my window.

To view picture, see paper copy.