BASE HEADER

Whilst there is no ideal situation in the village for development the preferred site is the best choice of the sites that have made it to this part of the process.

Site 1 sits within the most obvious envelope of the village, it would not cause the village to project further into the countryside or to move towards the other housing areas in the immediate vicinity (i.e. Sydenham). Whilst the preferred site is situated almost adjacent to the church there is still a substantial field in front of the church and a strip of land along the proposed site that will allow for the views of the church to be protected from the main road.

Sites 2 and 3 do not sit within the village envelope or the proposed village envelope. Housing built on these sites would not fit in with the rest of the village, they would seem like an annexe to the village as to get to them you would need to walk up the side of the main road. Instead of walking to the village facilities there would be a preference for driving. The preferred site sits within the village and all facilities would have an easy walk from that site (assuming the requisite traffic calming measures were introduced).

I would concur with the highway agencies view that sites 2 and 3 would not provide safe access due to the restricted views along the main road. The safety of drivers and pedestrians would be at risk. This risk would particularly affect pedestrians should a combination of 2 and 3 be used. Pedestrians walking from site 2 to 3 would have to cross the roads at a point of restricted view.

Again I would concur with the evidence presented that there would be a high impact on the vistas around sites 2 and 3.