MM67
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33390
Received: 16/01/2014
Respondent: richard stacey
I feel that when there is a site available on lower ground which has little or no impact on such an historical site as Canewdon Church, why would you consider building in front of the church which can be viewed for many miles away and which will impact on many generations to come, with such a high density this cannot be built sympatheticlyfor a rural village with such a historic church. In the 60's and 70's high density houses were built to the east which oblitarated church views from the east a lesson to be learned
I feel that when there is a site available on lower ground which has little or no impact on such an historical site as Canewdon Church, why would you consider building in front of the church which can be viewed for many miles away and which will impact on many generations to come, with such a high density this cannot be built sympatheticlyfor a rural village with such a historic church. In the 60's and 70's high density houses were built to the east which oblitarated church views from the east a lesson to be learned
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33460
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: richard stacey
Response to proposed main modification to the allocation document (April 13) concerning modification. Now that the land west of the church ahs been removed a higher number of dwellings are proposed to the East of church lane (below church)..This will result in a high density of dwellings that will impact on the setting of the Church. This will impede severely the view of the Church for miles around as Canewdon Church can be seen from as far as Barling, Southend Airport, Fossetts Way and more. The Church would be severely obscured from the south, which is the main direction of approach to the Church. It is essential that the development should be designed in a way as to be sympathetic to the rural village and the Historic character of the church. The said proposal would deem this impossible. The site is elevated making the proposed dwellings highly visible, so a development on lower ground would have far less damaging impact on the natural environment. The council think this is OK due to the high density dwellings that were built in the 60's, 70's to the east, this however does not affect the Church setting, but there is a lesson to be learned here because if you view the Church from the east it is completely obliterated from those dwellings so shouldn't be repeated. The alternate site SC1 does not impact on the church as its on lower ground and spreads to the east. The dwellings need to be directly below the Church and additional leisure space could be provided, this would be more sympathetic to the village as it would be less dense and could enhance the village sympathetically. This site can provide sympathetically full allocation which is being consistent with the core strategy. SC1. is deliverable being individually owned 2. The land is flat 3. No houses have to be demolished 4. Will be affordable. Conclusion The said development will seriously impact the setting of the Church and its iconic view seen for miles, this being Canewdon's main asset. In many years to come Canewdon will one day be developed but surely we can set an example to future generations and develop without impact on such a setting to be enjoyed by many now and many more in years to come.
The Point I was trying to make was there are hundreds of acres around Canewdon that could be developed so why spoil the Church.
Response to proposed main modification to the allocation document (April 13) concerning modification. Now that the land west of the church ahs been removed a higher number of dwellings are proposed to the East of church lane (below church)..This will result in a high density of dwellings that will impact on the setting of the Church. This will impede severely the view of the Church for miles around as Canewdon Church can be seen from as far as Barling, Southend Airport, Fossetts Way and more. The Church would be severely obscured from the south, which is the main direction of approach to the Church. It is essential that the development should be designed in a way as to be sympathetic to the rural village and the Historic character of the church. The said proposal would deem this impossible. The site is elevated making the proposed dwellings highly visible, so a development on lower ground would have far less damaging impact on the natural environment. The council think this is OK due to the high density dwellings that were built in the 60's, 70's to the east, this however does not affect the Church setting, but there is a lesson to be learned here because if you view the Church from the east it is completely obliterated from those dwellings so shouldn't be repeated. The alternate site SC1 does not impact on the church as its on lower ground and spreads to the east. The dwellings need to be directly below the Church and additional leisure space could be provided, this would be more sympathetic to the village as it would be less dense and could enhance the village sympathetically. This site can provide sympathetically full allocation which is being consistent with the core strategy. SC1. is deliverable being individually owned 2. The land is flat 3. No houses have to be demolished 4. Will be affordable. Conclusion The said development will seriously impact the setting of the Church and its iconic view seen for miles, this being Canewdon's main asset. In many years to come Canewdon will one day be developed but surely we can set an example to future generations and develop without impact on such a setting to be enjoyed by many now and many more in years to come.
The Point I was trying to make was there are hundreds of acres around Canewdon that could be developed so why spoil the Church.