Option SC3

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.

STRONGLY object to this proposed site. (1) It is on a slope which will effect drainage (2) Being on the slope it will be clearly visible when entering Canewdon creating an EYE SORE and making a rural town appear modern. It would also take away the essence of the church being the focal point (3) It is too small - (a) will create noise pollution for the houses close by (b) ruin views for surrounding residents which will DAMAGE community cohesion (4) Not practical to damage two lands both sides of road leading to Church.

My family live in Ash Green and have an amazing view overlooking Rochford and Southend. This is the key reason why we bought the property and it was reflected in the price. Building here would take this view and leave our family devastated. The prospect of building here is already causing us worry and anxiety. This is not starting on the right track for social cohesion. Distance is not the key matter for social cohesion as Canewdon is a small village anyway. South Canewdon SHOULD NOT be considered for further housing, it is not suitable, it is already crowded.

This is without doubt the worst proposal by the council on housing in Canewdon.
Any attempt to place dwellings within this limited space will only serve the purpose of creating a "ghetto" style housing development where properties are built virtually on top of each other.
The plot is too small to be seriously considered as a genuine option for housing in the area.
Such a development would be at the detriment of the current residents of Canewdon who quality of life would suffer in order to simply satisfy government targets.
Noise pollution, loss of views, drainage and loss of community spirit would materialise.

Destruction of current dwelling
Silly to split development over already existing road

I feel that there are enough residential housing in this area and any more will cause disruption to the already busy roads in the area.

I think it is such a shame that yet again we are going to loose even more of our lovely countryside,& I feel so sorry for the people who bought houses there for the beautiful view & will snd up loosing it,their children will loose the safe freedom they have there now & people from outside the district will loose the lovely walks & picnics they have enjoyed having there,I sincerely hope that this developement does not take place.

My house is no.1 cedar walk, according to this plan I am losing my garden. My garden is also next to the Anglian Water sewerage pump station, also disappearing in your plan... Living next to the sewer pump does not bother me despite the fact that it makes a noise on and off all day and night and we get a rat or two visiting, what would annoy me is the fact of having my view spoilt by a larger sewer station to accom these 60 houses and their waste alongside lack of garden and all my view of a housing estate- What value will my house have left if any? I want to move but this will not be possible if what we currently have here is ruined.
I moved here to get away from the urban jungle, my son has asthma so that will be just great to subject him to the extra pollution from the 60 minimum cars that will be in the 'back garden'.
What about the widlife? We have badgers on sc2, sc3 and sc4 sites so what happens to them?
At the point of scotts hall rd it floods as do the ditches alongside the sc2 route, sc1 would be underwater and it's no better at along canewdon rd itself, these could not be widened to accom the extra traffic as that would mean more established property removal. Ask anyone travelling down this rd what it's like after just one day of rain. These flood areas also ice over for a lot of the cold weather- the bottom of scotts hall covers across the whole road onto canewdon rd, I ride a motorbike so it is impossible to get past.
What will happen to the local school with all the extra children? The building cannot expand without causing a loss to yet more greenfield or on the current grounds now at the detriment to the current children.
What about the healthcare, we are lucky if we fall I'll on a Friday when the surgery is open for an hour, how will the 120+ people deal with this, I don't see an already stretched NHS service being improved when all these local developments go ahead, not just canewdon.
This is now keeping me awake at night with the worry of so many things wrong with all the plans, I don't see that any of us will be listened to, why out of all the supposed sites offered are these 4 even thought to be viable?
What of the history of Canewdon? We have a very famous church which is sought out, particularly on Halloween that will be nice for the new residents, and lovely for us to have the extra firework celebrations from various times of the year added to our quiet village.
Including losing my garden and the beautiful 3 bungalows which back onto my garden I don't see any provisions to keep the mature trees? I can only hope that as a village we are not split apart by these ridiculous plans as if you intend to 'purchase' my garden you have to buy my house too at a decent price not what the price will be once you have dessimated the area.
The building work that will go on will further upset me as to pay for said house we work nights so canewdon is ideal for the days to be quiet, there goes that too, ruining the last small historic village in S E Essex, I here Foulness is quite empty these days shame the government doesn't use it's own disused land.

Most appropriate site If any development is to go ahead - but not including green field as loss of agricultural greenbelt and no natural boundary to rest of field to prevent further development 'sprawl'. Must also consider limited loss of views by nearby houses. New development here would not be as out of place compared to green field options - within current village boundary, and already partly developed - promote as brownfield site? Potential for required number of houses if play space is not included - we may have sufficient playspaces in the village already?

I am a regular commuter to Canewdon to see family, friends and often have lunch at the Chequers Pub. I think that a housing estate at the entrance to Canewdon will be a comlete eye sore and look hideous when entering the village. I think it will cause traffic congestion and there is already problems with the drainage. There must be other sites away from the entrance to Canewdon where housing will be more suited and not be so much at the forefront. I hope that flats will not be placed on any of these sites.

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 SC3 extends across Scotts Hall Road and occupies the corner of an open field. As such it would be difficult to provide defensible green belt boundaries. This is clearly recognised in the discussion and consultation document.

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.

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

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

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

Support for the Canewdon dwellings.
See paper copy for details.

It is considered that SC2 is the most appropriate option to provide the development outlined in the Core Strategy Submission Document.

This report has considered conformity with the Core Strategy's strategic policies, the ability of the site option to meet the criteria listed under paragraph 4.19 of the Core Strategy and the performance of the options under the criterion of the site assessments (Achievability, Viability, Suitability, Deliverability, and having capacity to deliver the required infrastructure.

The Site Assessment undertaken as part of the Rochford Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Site 193) considers that the site has the capacity to provide a sufficient quantum of homes that would result in the community benefits as set out in the Core Strategy.

After this assessment, option SC2 is supported as the best option to provide a housing allocation as an extension to the south west of Canewdon. To a lesser extent, options SC3 and SC4 are supported. However, these options would not have the benefit of providing such a defined Green Belt boundary at the village limit, nor would they enable an integrated development to be provided along with infrastructure such as play space.

(For further details see supplied report)

Objection to Site SC1. See paper copy for details.

Comments of the 60 dwellings in Canewdon.
See paper copy for details.

Preference - SC3

Located on only one site

A mixture of flats, houses and bungalows.

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.

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

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