SC - Should more sites in the south of Canewdon be considered?

No development should be considered that impacts on greenbelt, woodland or Agricultural land.

No. Most of the sites put forward relate to the loss of agricultural greenfield sites - when it's gone, it's gone forever. Any sites for development should be as unobtrusive and sympathetic to the surroundings in order to maintain the character of Canewdon - this should be preserved as far as possible as there are few villages like it in the district. No doubt Rochford, Ashingdon, Hockley etc resembled a village in an earlier life!

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.

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.