MM57
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 32816
Received: 19/12/2013
Respondent: Rawreth Parish Council
Having studied the Inspectors interim report Rawreth Council strongly oppose the removal of the 5% flexibility capping as the removal of the 5% capping would leave no control over specific development sizes and would take away Localism.
In addition, removing the cap makes the previous public consultations unsound as the evidence base for sustainability was based on specific numbers. As Members of the public were consulted on a specified number of houses being built and this is then allowed to increase by an uncapped amount this rendering the process unsound. In addition by removing the cap and thus increasing the number of homes that can be built on specific sites the quality of life for residents both existing and new is diminished.
Allocations Submission Document: Consolidated list of modifications
On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response and representation of the Councils views with regards to the Allocations submission Document, following the interim report on the soundness of the plan issued by Mr David Smith BA(HONS) DMS MRTPI of the Planning Inspectorate .
Having studied the Inspectors interim report Rawreth Council strongly oppose the removal of the 5% flexibility capping as the removal of the 5% capping would leave no control over specific development sizes and would take away Localism.
In addition, removing the cap makes the previous public consultations unsound as the evidence base for sustainability was based on specific numbers. As Members of the public were consulted on a specified number of houses being built and this is then allowed to increase by an uncapped amount this rendering the process unsound. In addition by removing the cap and thus increasing the number of homes that can be built on specific sites the quality of life for residents both existing and new is diminished.
Yours faithfully
Mrs Hayley Bloomfield
On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33094
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs G Delve
According to the statement at MM57, the site will contain 'dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare'. The original site area of 2.4 hectares for 60 dwellings gave a density of 25 dwellings/hectare - suitably in keeping with the existing dwelling density of the rest of the village.
However, having reduced the site area to 1.5 hectares, allowing 49 dwelling on this site gives a density of 32.6 dwellings/hectare.
I feel strongly that this amended dwelling density is far too great and would be an unjustifiable level in context of the site and village as a whole.
According to the statement at MM57, the site will contain 'dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare'. The original site area of 2.4 hectares for 60 dwellings gave a density of 25 dwellings/hectare - suitably in keeping with the existing dwelling density of the rest of the village.
However, having reduced the site area to 1.5 hectares, allowing 49 dwelling on this site gives a density of 32.6 dwellings/hectare.
I feel strongly that this amended dwelling density is far too great and would be an unjustifiable level in context of the site and village as a whole.
Support
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33095
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Dennis Haggerty
I wholeheartedly support the density of dwellings proposed especially if the mix provides for a higher proportion of affordable homes with special reference to first time buyer and more compact buildings with higher energy performance suitable for elderly people especially those living alone on fixed incomes.
I wholeheartedly support the density of dwellings proposed especially if the mix provides for a higher proportion of affordable homes with special reference to first time buyer and more compact buildings with higher energy performance suitable for elderly people especially those living alone on fixed incomes.
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33147
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Ms Kay Haladay
the number of homes now planned within this area would not be low density and in keeping to a rural location. This would refelct badly on the church and vicarage.
the number of homes now planned within this area would not be low density and in keeping to a rural location. This would refelct badly on the church and vicarage.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33155
Received: 14/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Mike Wright
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural and village communities.
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural and village communities.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33163
Received: 14/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Arthur Cundick
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development with in rural and village communities.
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development with in rural and village communities.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33170
Received: 14/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Stan Costin
We object to the proposal for the following reasons.
1.Loss of green belt area
2. 49 houses is not in keeeping with the surrounding area and will de-value existing properties. The area has mainly detached properties which is in keeping with the rest of the village
3. The current infrastructure is now at its maximum eg schools, roads, transport,doctors and the main one the sewage system, this will only compound the existing problems.
4.The view to and from the church would be obstructed- this is an historical church and should not be obstructed
5. Only single storie properties should be considered
We object to the proposal for the following reasons.
1.Loss of green belt area
2. 49 houses is not in keeeping with the surrounding area and will de-value existing properties. The area has mainly detached properties which is in keeping with the rest of the village
3. The current infrastructure is now at its maximum eg schools, roads, transport,doctors and the main one the sewage system, this will only compound the existing problems.
4.The view to and from the church would be obstructed- this is an historical church and should not be obstructed
5. Only single storie properties should be considered
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33189
Received: 14/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Tom Glover
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural and village communities.
The development of a higher density number of homes compared to the original proposals for this plot of land would have a significant impact so close to the conservation area of the Church and surrounding conservation area. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the conservation area and the view of the village from the south and up to the church.
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural and village communities.
The development of a higher density number of homes compared to the original proposals for this plot of land would have a significant impact so close to the conservation area of the Church and surrounding conservation area. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the conservation area and the view of the village from the south and up to the church.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33261
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Nick Whalley
There is no work in Canewdon for ANY incomers, not even for the people who already live here. The declared intent to create new homes at a high density would result in more houses rather than less and increase the road traffic activity between the village and some work location or access point; a rail station or bus route. High density will reduce an opportunity for creation of leisure points for the unemployed.
Is this really a PLAN for the benefit of the Essex people? I do not think so. Politicians are again about to shoot themselves in the foot!!
There is no work in Canewdon for ANY incomers, not even for the people who already live here. The declared intent to create new homes at a high density would result in more houses rather than less and increase the road traffic activity between the village and some work location or access point; a rail station or bus route. High density will reduce an opportunity for creation of leisure points for the unemployed.
Is this really a PLAN for the benefit of the Essex people? I do not think so. Politicians are again about to shoot themselves in the foot!!
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33265
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Keith Williams
The development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural/village communities.
Space for the new homes will be limited within a development of this size and not in keeping with the existing village.
The development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural/village communities.
Space for the new homes will be limited within a development of this size and not in keeping with the existing village.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33268
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Angie Rose
This is an increase to the original plan and it to much for the size and dynamics of the village. A gradual increase could work but a block increase like this will cause an imbalance. Will the facilities supplied to the village be reviewed to cope with this sizeable increase to the population? ie school, roads, transport
This is an increase to the original plan and it to much for the size and dynamics of the village. A gradual increase could work but a block increase like this will cause an imbalance. Will the facilities supplied to the village be reviewed to cope with this sizeable increase to the population? ie school, roads, transport
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33333
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Lyn Sinden
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the development of 49 homes within this area would not be of low density as expected within rural and village communities. The development of a higher density number of homes compared to the original proposals for this plot of land would have a significant impact so close to the conservation area of the Church and surrounding conservation area. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the conservation area and the view from the south and up to the church.
I object to this proposal on the grounds that the development of 49 homes within this area would not be of low density as expected within rural and village communities. The development of a higher density number of homes compared to the original proposals for this plot of land would have a significant impact so close to the conservation area of the Church and surrounding conservation area. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the conservation area and the view from the south and up to the church.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33384
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Joanna Gibson
49 dwellings in this area is absurd. Canewdon is a rural village and 49 dwellings is just far too many. The houses will be small and cramed in and not in keeping with the layout of Canewdon or the Council's original planning report. I completely object to this level of density. Please think about the rural locality and not about the quota of housing you have to fulfil.
49 dwellings in this area is absurd. Canewdon is a rural village and 49 dwellings is just far too many. The houses will be small and cramed in and not in keeping with the layout of Canewdon or the Council's original planning report. I completely object to this level of density. Please think about the rural locality and not about the quota of housing you have to fulfil.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33388
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: Benjamin Gibson
49 homes within this area would not be low density.
The development is too close to the conservation area of the Church. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the and the view of the village from the south up to the church.
This is not in keeping with the village or the Council's original planning report, which included a community play area - more homes into a smaller area would not be in keeping with the village or the sensitive positioning of this plot of land in relation to the Church and the conservation area.
My objection to the proposal is based on the following grounds;
1) Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural village communities
2) The development of a higher density number of homes compared to the original proposals for this plot oof land would have a significant impact so close to the conservation area of the Church and surrounding area. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the conservation area and the view of the village from the south up to the church.
3) Space for new homes will be limited within a development of this size and not in keeping with the village or the Council's original planning report, which included a community play area. Cramming more homes into a smaller area would not be in keeping with the village or the sensitive positioning of this plot of land in relation to the Church and the conservation area.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33392
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: Miss Sarah Johnson
I am not against the development entirely, I am against where the proposed site will be. There is more suitable land available to build houses on, on the opposite side of the road, why put it in front of the church? My daughter will grow up in the village and it will be nice for her in the future to look across the fields and see St Nicholas Church and not have her view blocked by houses.
I am not against the development entirely, I am against where the proposed site will be. There is more suitable land available to build houses on, on the opposite side of the road, why put it in front of the church? My daughter will grow up in the village and it will be nice for her in the future to look across the fields and see St Nicholas Church and not have her view blocked by houses.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33413
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Laura Cripps
I object to this development as the ratio of homes is not low density as would be expected in a rural/village community.
I object to this development as the ratio of homes is not low density as would be expected in a rural/village community.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33416
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Rachael Glover
The number of homes proposed for this area will have a significant negative impact on the village in relation to protecting the views of the church and surrounding historical conservation area. Please see: LDF Evidence Base report on Canewdon Church Conservation Area Appraisal and Management plan (Rochford DC and Essex CC 2007) with key recommendations such as "Views through the vicarage grounds should be preserved to protect the open and rural character of the churchyard.".
This area of land affronts a historic conservation area and leads the eye up to the conservation area and the church from the main entry road to the village. Any development within this area needs to be very carefully considered and it is my view that 49 new homes is excessive taking into account the sensitive area, the adjoining conservation area and the historical aspect.
Space for the new homes will be limited within a development of this size and not in keeping with the village or the Council's original planning report, which included a community play area. Cramming more homes into a smaller plot of land would not be in keeping with the village or the sensitive positioning of this plot of land in relation to the Church and conservation area.
Development of 49 homes within this area would not be low density development as expected within rural and village communities.The development of a higher density number of homes compared to the original proposals for this plot of land would have a significant impact so close to the conservation area of the Church and surrounding conservation area. A lower number of dwellings would reduce the impact to the village community, the conservation area and the view of the village from the south and up to the church.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33419
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Ms Anita Cope-Prior
The development of 49 dwellings, being a higher proportion of properties compared to the original proposals for this plot of land, simply does not constitute a low density development as expected within rural and village communities.
The development of 49 dwellings, being a higher proportion of properties compared to the original proposals for this plot of land, simply does not constitute a low density development as expected within rural and village communities.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33420
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: mr david gillbee
twenty to twenty two units should be the max density for housing that land is unsuitable for anything denser on drainage grounds alone......from an apearance point of view 8 to 10 would be better anything that interferes with the view of the church i unacceptable also the infrerstructure of the village is stretched and any further development should be addressed first,,,,,water gas electricity fibre optic broadband school and medical service as well as public transport.
twenty to twenty two units should be the max density for housing that land is unsuitable for anything denser on drainage grounds alone......from an apearance point of view 8 to 10 would be better anything that interferes with the view of the church i unacceptable also the infrerstructure of the village is stretched and any further development should be addressed first,,,,,water gas electricity fibre optic broadband school and medical service as well as public transport.
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33442
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Great Wakering Parish Council
We would like to express our concern at your proposal to remove the 5% cap for residential extensions (Policy SER1-9).
Dear Sirs
We refer to your letter ref ALLSOM261113 dated 26th November, 2013 in respect of the above.
We would like to express our concern at your proposal to remove the 5% cap for residential extensions (Policy SER1-9).