Policy SER7 - South Canewdon

Canewdon is not, in my opinion, a suitable area in which to build more houses.
Firstly, Canewdon has no real infrastructure. There is a skeleton bus sevice, no real activities for children to engage in and poorly maintained roads which will worsen with the increased rate of traffic. With more houses in the village, the number of children will inevitably rise. With almost nothing to do, other than the park, there will certainly be an increased risk in anti-social behaviour, which coupled with the non-existant police presence in the village, may lead to an increased crime rate. As an example, a elderly friend who lives in the village had a problem with people knocking on her door, smashing bottle on the her property and being generally anti-social. When she called the police to inform them, she was assured that a car would be sent out. And it was, 2 nights later at 2:30 am. We have a clear lack of policing, and I feel that more houses will only worsen the situation. Will we get more police coverage with this proposed development?
The very limited bus service offers a very limited range of activities for children to engage in, and therefore children will rely upon parents to take them to places such as Southend/Clements Hall/Garons/etc, which will increase the amount of traffic. The roads connecting Canewdon to main areas like Southend and Rochford are already in poor condition and congested (namely Ashingdon Road, of which all of the ways out of the village bring you onto). As a busy road at any time of the day, during high levels of traffic, such as the school run/rush hour, these roads will be overloaded beyond reasonable capacity (especially with the commencing building of The Paddocks on Brays Lane). Ashingdon Road may not, with these extra houses in Canewdon, be a suitable connecting, with further demostrates my point of a blatent lack of infrastructure surrounding the proposed site.
Secondly, the natural beauty of the area will be compromised by the new build. St Nicholas Church, one of the most famous and historic churches in the country, famed for its haunted past, will be used as a 'cut through' from the proposed development to the main village (ie, the school/shop/etc). The church is a place of rest, and I feel the church yard will not be respected for what it is. Many people, including myself, have late family buried in the church, and it saddens me to think that the church may not be fully respected. The view of the church will also be affected by the proposed development, as the houses are being built upon a fairly steep gradient. As the houses are built up, they restrict the full view of the church, and further compromises the richness of the history surrounding the links between the churches in the area.
Moreover, Canewdon is predominantly greenfield land. I believe that the government attempting to reduce urban sprawl to maintain areas of greenfield land, which are becoming ever rarer in modern society, and so I feel the planned development goes against a government policy, and even a moral obligation to protect Britan's natural environment.

The proposed development would have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours due to the increased level of noise, disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy and over shadowing caused by the location of the new build properties. The development would have a negative visual impact on the community as it will drastically alter the physical image of the village as you enter. Increased housing would also have a negative impact on the character of the neighbourhood, the village feel will be lost forever. The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect residential amenity of neighbouring owners. The development

The plan goes against the Parish Council which is undemocratic. The council has put forward reasonable plans to find a site for the houses needed east of Scotts Hall Lane and for some reason this is being ignored.
Residents seem to have no say in this site. Objections have been made with regards to subsidence, wildlife/environmental concerns and the proximity to listed buildings (the church).
Rochford Council needs to listen to the Parish Council. The principal of subsidiarity should apply, decisions should be made at the most local level about issues affecting a local community.

The greenfield site to the west of Church Road should not be developed and should remain as Green Belt. The wider view should be taken across Essex -Southend has lots of redundant industrial and office space that has sat empty and un-developed for years - this should not be happening whilst green fields are being sacrificed elsewhere. 60 dwellings seems excessive; together with development across Rochford, Ashingdon and Hockley- and traffic congestion is going to be terrible! Transport costs mean that living in a village isn't always affordable. Canewdon should maintain 'village' status without the risk of over-development.

we have lived in this village for over 30 years and would like to stress the word village not town...
where we understand the urgent need for additional housing this cannot be to the detriment of the appearance and communal spirit of the community as a whole. by building 60 houses in the area shown it will drastically ruin the view of the church and therefore how people feel about where they live.

the village at present is a quiet and safe place for us and our children.

Choosing this area to locate 60 houses will not only blight the look and feel of the Village setting as you enter it, whilst I have no objection to the building of new properties within the village this site proposal will obsure the Church, and in all proabability bring problems with drainage and probably the new properties would be subject to problems.

I object to this development on the grounds of the spoiling of the visual impact on the church and surrouunding area.

I moved to Canewdon because it was a peaceful small village, as the years go on each house hold needs more private transport as the council has reduced the way we travel on public transport, if we get any more houses here the rads are going to ba more congested by around +100 cars ( working on a family having two cars) crime levels will increase as the average population grows so there will be a short fall in our already shortage of police on the grown and lack of response from stations a long way away from the village.
Why spoil a place people come to for a day out to visit this pretty village and dine here and visit the marina and pubs. if you must build, put them near to town amenities that are already in place and don't ruin one of the few nice places left in our countryside.
THINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR ONCE, BEFORE THERE IS ANOTHER MISTAKE THAT CANT BE RECTIFIED.

The site that is proposed will totally ruin the look of the village. The church is a landmark within the village and to have an urban sprawl around it would be awful. Canewdon is a village not a housing estate, which this would in effect turn it into. Thought and consideration should be given to the fact that it is a VILLAGE and should remain so. I strongly feel the village will lose its identity and uniqueness if this plan goes ahead.

We have farmed the field since 1958 when we first moved to Canewdon and do not want to lose valuable farmland. Other sites in Canewdon are more suitable for developement elsewhere in the village. Visually this would impact upon Canewdon as you enter the Village, the Church is a beautiful feature that needs to remain unobscured by a housing developement from the approaching road. We feel that Church Hill is the boundary of the developement within Canewdon and should remain so.

The main objections to this housing development is that we feel this is only the thin of the wedge, as the proposal does not specify any total numbers - once these are built it sets the precedent for future housing and the next phase will be housing from Anchor Lane up to the church boundary. Also there is going to be a minimum of 21 "tenure houses" which in my language means council housing, we all ready have a high number of social houses within the village and this will only compound the problem. The original concept of Canewdon was that it would be a model village not a council estate which it will become with the subsequent devaluation of the private houses.
Also there has always been a problem with the sewage system within the village and this will only compound the problem. Without seeing the detailed plans I assume that the estate will be accessed via Church Lane which was built as a farm road and access to the church

No development should be allowed to the west of the road running to the Church as it erodes the natural green belt break that exists currently and could result in further ribbon development along Lark Hill Road. Also it would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Grade 2 listed church, the grade 2 listed rectory, the grade 2 listed White House Farm and the Canewdon Church Conservation Zone.

The plan should adopt the site that was recommended by the Parish Council following public consultation.

This is Green Belt Land. It surrounds St Nicholas Church, which is a focal part of the Village. As people drive towards the Village the Church can be seen from every direction. The proposed development will completely obsecure the view. English Heritage have highlighted this Church's tower as the finist in Essex. The whole charater of the Village will be changed forever. In addition it is a quiet area where people can enjoy a restful time. The access to this area is a off a narrow road around a blind bend and is valuable agricultural land. We at CPREssex therefore believe that this Green Belt land should not be considered for any development.

This develoment would put a strain on the local amenities, such as road access due to increase in car useage, also with the current level of public transport this mean that all the new residents would require vehicles which could potentially mean up to 120 car/vehicles which the local roads could not cope with. 60 house on this site i feel
would be an over develoment in a area near to,what is alrady a very busy and difficult cross Road.

Strongly object to the allocation chosen by the council only, and NOT the villagers, also the council are saying this was the preferred site but it wasn't.This site has bad drainage which will only add to the problem, because it will be on a gradient and has no infrastructure.The land is Saxon church land which shows our historic Grade ll star listed church to its maximum. It is a quiet peaceful haven for ramblers and dog walkers, but if the houses are built there it will only encourage more traffic to the church which in turn means more trouble and littering.

I believe that the village already has enough houses and do not believe the local infrastructure could comfortably support anymore. Secondly the proposed location would completly destroy the asthetic of the village. It would obscure the church and be a blight on the landscape. This location is also not supported by the Parish council.

We support the concept statement acknowledging:
- SuDS need to be provided and a drainage strategy submitted;
- That upgrades to the downstream sewers are likely to be required prior to the development. This issue is acknowledged in your Water Cycle Study so the reference in your allocations DPD is welcomed.

I feel that Church Road acts as a defensible Green Belt boundary. If development is allowed to the west of Church Road it would be harder to defend against future ribbon development along Lark Hill Road. I also feel that the setting of the church would be adversely affected by any development on either of the proposed sites.

I have significant concerns relating to the area under proposal for the preferred development site for Canewdon.

The Canewdon Church Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan document published by Essex CC for Rochford Council in Oct 2007 states:

7.3 "Views through the vicarage grounds should be preserved to protect the open and rural character of the churchyard." - Views would be severely affected by development on the proposed site.

Character Analysis
"6.11 The main focus of the conservation area is provided by the churchyard and vicarage grounds, which are characterised by their open and rural setting." - Development so close to this area would sinificanty compromise the open and rural setting.

Fig. 18 Important views in, out and through the conservation area. - The views in and out of the conservation area as detailed in the document would be significantly affected by the proposed development.

6.10 The lane running off Lark Hill Road is a historic route leading to Canewdon Hall. It climbs the hill to the church tower in a gentle curve that draws the eye upwards, providing visual drama as the massive tower reveals itself above the surrounding trees and hedgerow (Fig. 17). - Any development in that corner of the village would affect a historic route and affect the visual appeal and character of the village.

As a resident of Ash green, our house would directly back onto he proposed development and I would be seriously concerned about the impact this would have on our views, abundant wildlife and disruption to our quality of life.

It was strongly indicated by Council Officers that development would not be on the raised area beneath the Church. The favoured position was on the lower lying land running to the east of Scotts Hall Lane; the Parish Council by their own admission did not know of this site being promoted by the church until th 18th August 2012 and are totally against the proposal.

The previously preferred area to the East of Scots Hall Lane would have much less impact on residents and their way of life and quality of life, the asthetics of the conservation area, and the local wildlife.

I do not feel that the village has been adequately informed of this new proposal nor that a suitable consultation period was in place.

The proposed land is too close to the church conservation area and the historic views from the Grade II listed Church. The unique location of the villages in the Rochford area being close to Southend whilst still retaining their village atmosphere and way of life should be maintained, and any new development should take this into account. 60 new dwellings is too many for a village the size of Canewdon and whilst the need for new housing is always an issue, the historic links that the village has should be protected for future generations to enjoy.

I object to the following proposed building application as it would increase the foot traffic through the church, the church foot path is not a right of way. The development would also spoil the views of the church when approaching the village from the south and west.

The number of proposed houses will ruin the village environment.

1. I first learned of this project on 18th Jan 2013, giving very little time to research & object to this plan.This cannot be right. Surely, local residents should have more consultation. I did receive a letter about core strategy, but having accessed the site, failed miserably to find anything about this plan. I understand this was the experience of other people in the area. Coordinator Julie Foster kindly gave insight on how to access the plan, after she had a great deal of difficulty in finding it! I can only think the Council was trying to keep it secret till it was too late to object. Deplorable! More consultation & notice please.
2.View (a) the view approaching the village would be compromised by new housing on a 'green field site'. (b) the view from the Church area would also be compromised.
3.Traffic - an increase of traffic on to a road already seen by many drivers as a race track. An increase of traffic around the Village. The corner of Scotts Hall Rd & Lark Hill Rd would become increasingly hazardous.Walking & cycling(now very popular in the area) along Lark Hill Rd would become more dangerous.
4. 60+ new homes would impose an unacceptable strain on the local School. Walking children along Lark Hill Rd ( no paving initially) would be dangerous, encouraging parents to drive to the School, where there is little available parking.
5. Building a Church car park at the top of the hill would futher blight the view. It would encourage further abuse by anti - social youngsters in cars at night.
6. Inadequate public transport would require that more car traffic would be travelling in & out of the Village.
7. It is my understanding that there was an alternative plan that was more acceptable & could have brought some advantages the Village.
4.

this proposed development will spoil the outlook of Canewdon village, and i have no doubt that the local infrastructure cannot sustain such an onslaught off extra traffic, the sewage drainage is overworked as it is, the mains water pressure will suffer, extra load on outdated electricity supply, the HGV traffic will ruin an already worn out road, a housing estate that will be built with no thought put into how the properties will be serviced by refuse vehicles ect, i could go on and on as to why this build MUST NOT take place but am limitted by space.

Policy SER7 - South Canewdon

Simply put, this site is not South Canewdon as the Core Strategy states it must be. The chosen location is West Canewdon and positioned in the most sensitive location within the entire village, immediately south of the wonderful Grade II* listed church. It is not an appropriate location for development.

The sensitivities of the site are even identified by the document itself in Para 3.201, which states that:

"Development must be sensitive to views of St Nicholas Church particularly from the south west."

Whilst on one hand the ASD acknowledges that the site is sensitive to views of the church, it then seeks to mitigate against any damage through design alone. This approach will not result in an acceptable situation. The setting of the Grade II* listed church will be compromised forever. The local community, interested parties and the Council are all responsible for protecting our heritage for future generations. From reading some of the other comments online, it is clear that the local community accept that responsibility by strongly objecting to the proposed allocation, as we do.

The local community are immensely proud of their church to the extent that fundraising to illuminate the entire church, for that is the extent to which it is visible at night, now allows visitors and residents alike to view the church from afar. The additional light pollution caused by placing development to the immediate south of the church will obscure this important view of the entire church, which should be protected.

Whilst we believe that it is appropriate for Canewdon to take its fair share of development, the option chosen by the Council causes the most harm to the Grade II* listed church. This is in direct contradiction to the Core Strategy policies, which seek to protect our heritage. As one of the Core Strategy Character of Place objectives explains, the Council need:

"1. To ensure that new development respect and make a positive contribution towards the built environment.

2. To support and enhance the local built heritage."

The current proposal for Canewdon does not achieve this key objective of the Core strategy and is therefore unsound.

The NPPF also places significant weight on the protection of heritage assets and as Para 132 of the NPPF states, the higher the significance, the greater the weight should be placed on the impact of new development on the heritage asset:

"132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting."

The only way to truly protect the church is to not place development in it's setting at all and it is this approach that the Council should now take. Whilst design may be able to help reduce this impact, it cannot be mitigated entirely. The restricted size of the site, the location and the elevated nature of the land itself do not provide the necessary options, or space for any significant degree of mitigation. The intended screening of the houses, due to the elevated position of the site is likely to screen part of the church as well, thus demonstrating that this site is not appropriate for development.

As illustrated by the photographs below, the introduction of new housing immediately to the south of the Church, regardless of their design, will cause irreversible damage to the setting, contrary to Core Strategy and NPPF policies. It is not the very short distance views, like the ones identified by the Council in their site assessment that will be dramatically affected by development in this location. It is the medium to longer distance views, such as those provided below. The proposed development will block a considerable element of the church leaving only the top section of the spire visible. The Council have not undertaken an appropriately thorough assessment of the impact of this proposed development, relying instead on an assumption that "design" can overcome the impact on this Grade II* listed church. This is not the case and as a result, the ASD MUST be found to be unsound and requires a new assessment of the development options at Canewdon.

The first photograph demonstrates that any development rising up the hill is going to have a devastating effect on the setting of the listed church. The bungalow in the foreground sits in the southwest corner of the proposed site. The proposed housing will be taller than this single storey property and positioned higher up the hill.

The white rendered houses on the right hand side of the second photograph demonstrate the height at which new housing will rise to, which will leave only the church tower visible. A significant reduction compared to the view of the church that exists today.

Para 3.203 suggests that existing and proposed trees should be placed in private ownership as part of the proposals, presumably to help mitigate against the damage that development in this location will have on the church. It is common knowledge that placing trees in private ownership does not protect their future. It is often the case that once in private ownership there is no protection. Once again the proposed mitigation measures that are deemed essential by the Council are ill considered and illogical, as such in our opinion the ASD is not a sound document and should be withdraw and reconsulted.

In addition, Para 3.204 accepts that it is likely that some trees will be lost which will irreversibly damage the existing green, undeveloped setting of the Grade II* listed church. This is an important setting of not only the church but also the village as it is in a very prominent position. The development of such a sensitive site, as previously reported, is not in line with the Core Strategy and NPPF.

3.207 also acknowledge that the proposal sits within a very sensitive location, seeking the protection of named listed buildings. This once again questions the suitability of the site in the first place. There cannot be a presumption in favour of development in this location as it is not "sustainable" as envisaged by the Government.

The area identified in the ASD includes two large residential bungalows. It is not clear from the concept statement whether the bungalows themselves are included in the area, or whether they are excluded, or indeed the bungalows and their associated land is available for development in either the short, medium or long term. It will only take one landowner to decide that they do not wish to sell and this entire allocation fails. With the size so tight on the minimum required, there is no margin to accommodate this scenario, which is contrary to the supporting text, which states that:

"It is important that the allocation of land allows for a degree of flexibility in terms of the number of dwellings that can be delivered."

The loss of the bungalows would also be to the detriment of the village and result in the net loss of 2 units. In that scenario, it is imperative that the site accommodates a minimum of 62 new homes to compensate for this loss.

In line with Government guidance, RDC are seeking the introduction of SUDS. Utilising the existing gradient will be essential, thus the Anchor Lane boundary as the lowest is best placed to provide the balancing pond. In the concept statement, the open space is placed to the north, which is absurd as this will not provide any landscape mitigation and will result in SUDS not be achieved. These points and the existing drainage issues associated with these sites, clearly demonstrate that RDC have not thought this site through.

Farm access will continue to be required northwards towards Canewdon Hall Farm. The current road will need significant upgrading, reducing further the viability of the proposals. In addition with the open space and play equipment being cited for the west of the lane, it will be necessary for families to cross the road in order to access the facilities; a far from ideal situation.

The area surrounding the church is of archaeological significance and developing in this location will place considerable pressure on the below ground artifacts. There is no justification for concentrating development in this location when other more desirable and less damaging options are available.

It is incorrect to identify the land immediately associated with the bungalows as "multi-surface" on Figure 7 - this is misleading. Other than the actual bungalows, these sites are green in nature.


South Canewdon Option SC1 - Land south of Anchor Lane

Referring back to the "Discussion and Consultation Document" the council viewed site SC1 as follows (our underlining):

"Option SC1 is located south of Anchor Lane and extends as far east as the natural boundary just past the junction with Sycamore Way. The site is bounded to the north and west by roads (Anchor Lane and Scotts Hall Road) to the east by a residential dwelling. To the south of the site are agricultural fields. The Core Strategy Submission Document states that infrastructure required alongside this site includes: 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 Systems, all of which this site has the capacity to provide. Development of 60 dwellings on this site would also help to sustain the rural community whilst not eroding away the openness of the Green Belt. The site would afford opportunities for the creation of a defensible green belt boundary."

In stark contrast, the same document commented that in respect of the now chosen option:

"However the impact on the road leading to St Nicholas Church must be considered. It would be difficult to create a defensible green belt boundary from development of these sites however."

Somehow, and without any explanation in the supporting documentation, there has been a seismic shift in the views of the Council that is not evidence based. To the extent that in the Submission Document, the disregarded option SC1 incorrectly comments that the lack of an existing southern boundary is a negative element to the site. Whereas previously this was seen as a positive feature of the site.

Within the site assessment document Sept 2012, Section 12 "Other Issues and Summary" when assessing land to the south of Anchor Lane one of the concluding paragraphs states that whilst the site will not result in the coalescence of villages:

"...this site would extend the existing allocated residential area of Canewdon further to the south..."

This has been written and presented as a negative point, despite the fact that the Core Strategy is seeking the development of 60 houses "South of Canewdon".

The density figures demonstrate that the proposed site does not have the capacity to provide the number of houses at an appropriate density and also provide the open space. By developing SC1, the opportunity exists to comfortably provide the required number of houses, including the design and planting of a bespoke southern boundary, which will, in the long run provide a far more valuable asset to the village than relying on existing road and hedge as the southern boundary. The landowner, of which there is only one, has already committed to actively investigating the provision of open space, woodland and sports field in excess of that required by policy, thus enabling a new, structured landscaped southern boundary and valuable community facility for Canewdon. This new boundary can be implemented during the next planting season to ensure that by 2021 a new southern boundary has established itself.

In a similar vein, Mr Stacey has already undertaken initial conversations with representatives of the Village Hall, who require significant financial funding to replace the current hall. This would be in addition to the standard S106 requirements and demonstrates unequivocally the desire of Mr Stacey to give back to the community.

Unlike the proposed allocation, land to the south of Anchor Lane will connect directly into the existing public footpath system, across Anchor Lane and also to the east connecting to the footpath that runs north-south via a new footpath across Mr Stacey's land.

We urge the Inspector to come and look at the site, the elevated position of the village and the Grade II* listed church in particular and how the location of development in Canewdon is critical to preserving the history, whilst securing the future success of the village. The Localism Act seeks the views of the local community and demands the Local Authorities to act upon these views. This is one such case. The community of Canewdon is immensely proud of their church and existing heritage policies demand that it is given the appropriate protection. Developing in the proposed location is riding roughshod over the wishes of the local community. This plan must NOT be submitted without another round of consultat

Villages are meant to remain small. Look for brownfield sites. Green belt and farming fields lost for ever. View of ancient church.

The country, the South-East and Essex needs more houses so that we and our children can afford to live in a house. This site looks a good space with minimal impact, although I would welcome houses being built next to where I live at the other side of the village. More people in Canewdon will help sustain the services that already exist, which are under threat. Eg the school is vital for character of the village but has a falling role.

3.213 I support the view on the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage and requirement for consultation with the County Council. I also endorse the requirement for a foul and surface water drainage strategy for the site that should be agreed with Rochford before commencement of develpment.
3.214 Anglian Water offer a pre planning services and developers are encouraged to contact us at the earliest opportunity to ensure infrastructure requirements can be considered and implemented. Details can be found:

http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/developers/planning/

Firstly, for a public consultation the ease of both finding this document to comment on, as well as understanding how it fits in with the bewildering array of multi-level supporting documents is extremely confusing and misleading. For such an important issue I would have expected the public to have absolute transparency of the consultation across multiple forms of media, not just on a 'difficult to navigate' website.

I am not opposed to development, but I do implicitly object to this development and the apparent 'underhand' way this proposal appears to have been slipped through. Our local Parish Council delivered its views and concerns from the community in a letter from Mrs Holland back in 2010. There does not appear to have been any transparent cohesive consultation since then on the proposals, up until now. It is clear that the views from the Parish Council, and hence the Council Tax paying residents have been clearly ignored by a process which is clearly designed to 'tick boxes' rather than listen to the views of Council Tax paying, and local government voting residents.

My particular issues with this development are summarised as follows:

(a) The views to and from this iconic church will be permanently ruined, particularly from the west / south west. I fail to see how a 21st century house with solar panels etc will be sympathetic in design to a medieval iconic church?
(b) The council appears to have forgotten about the effect of light pollution at night. This will drown out further views of the church at night from as far as Shoebury and to the west.
(c) additional vegetation and trees appear to be the solution to blocking out the development keeping them 'sympathetic'. What happens when these trees mature and completely obscure the views to the church?
(d) There are some major developments both planned and commencing around the Ashingdon Road 'corridor'. The traffic is already horrendous during peak times (even without the Refuse collection completely stalling everything), are the planners completely mad by adding even more housing to an already bottle necked B-road which all converges at a mini roundabout under a height limited bridge at Rochford station?
(e) I would have though more of Rochford district council with its 'Green' credentials than to build on green belt land - which both this and all the other Ashingdon Road 'corridor' developments seem to be being built on. I heard that RDC were the best council for recycling, and yet it appears to give up its green belt too freely.

Development east of Rochford town centre is ill advised. The area is the only large area of open country in South Essex, an important resource for Rochford and the wider area. It lacks infrastructure, and in particular roads, with a single access to the west, already overloaded. Development here results in excessive car use and long journeys, compared to sites to the west.

In the High Court case of Cogent v Rochford, the LPA defended, successfully, on the basis that development should be located in the west and development to the east is inappropriate. It is inconsistent to now promote development contrary to this successful defence.

Adequate infrastructure, in particular the A127, A130, airport, shops, railways, schools and employment are located in the west of Rochford. This is where new housing and other development should be located, leaving the open and wild eastern area and small settlements to be conserved, promoting small businesses that preserve the traditional rural landscape and promote green tourism. Once it is gone it will never come back. Canewdon specifically will be harmed by development that destroys the view approaching the village, is against the wishes of local people and will put the new residents far from any employment, schools or shops.