Community comments
From Graham - Fairlawn Drive
Your flyer that was delivered today is the first I've heard of this. Putting aside the aesthetics, graves, trees etc it is perfectly obvious to anyone who regularly travels along Pendleton and surrounding roads, that the increased traffic will bring the area to a standstill and the main road is already very dangerous.
Taken very early one morning with no traffic although these images show the very tight entrance into St Johns Church on the brow of a hill and on a corner.
Such a development would have a significant negative impact on the area and make the already dangerous road, more dangerous, for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians; I presume there’s no planning condition to block off the access from Pendleton road either, which is nothing short of crazy?
A central question has to be – what does the Conservation Area status stand for? At the very least it has to be preserving the character of the area, which is being gradually eroded, despite the conservation status.
======================
From Suzanne - Fairlawn Drive
St John's Church is beautiful, and it looks as though it sits on the hill within its original "God's Acre". It is fortunate to still be in its historical setting. I do not believe this should be destroyed.
======================
From Jamie - South Croydon
Unbelievable situation, I'm shocked that a Church would even consider something like this.
========================
From Sue - Kings Avenue
Just a thought...............Why can a huge building be allowed to be constructed in a Conservation Area, when I cannot install energy efficient UPVc windows in my home.
=========================
From Mrs P Hubbery - South Godstone
My 2 Great Grandfathers, Great Grandmother and a Great Aunt are buried in St Johns Churchyard. The names on the gravestone are Francis Mayell (Jr) Francis Mayell (Sr) Elizabeth Mayell and Mary Hyder
==========================
From Mr & Mrs Mason
We live in Ifield Close and are horrified to learn of this new development; not just for obvious environmental reasons, but also due to the increased parking demand this will no doubt create in our local streets, and will only serve to exacerbate the existing congestion and road access difficulties caused when current church activities take place. It can only add to the motoring and pedestrian dangers for local people when navigating the surrounding roads. We are flabbergasted that both the Church and Council find this perfectly acceptable and that the Council has not insisted on the Church providing additional parking facilities to support the activities in the new function hall.
======================
From Andrew Jackson
I have just received your "Why we object" notice. I must say that I have never seen such a one-sided piece of NIMBY'ISM campaigning in my life. The church is nothing without a congregation and a church community cannot expect to be maintained in the 21st Century without the ability to hold social events and support the church. The building is in keeping with the existing church It will have no visual effect on the most local houses and certainly not on those in Kings Ave. As an active local volunteer leader I find it very depressing that such NIMBY selfish attitudes still exist. Without an ability to raise finace through social & community events the upkeep of the church building will eventually fall on all local council tax payers which I am sure is an outcome that few local residents would want to see.
===========================
From Alan and Kerstin Hinkley
The loss of trees and graves is of serious concern to us. We also share the concerns raised about additional traffic and impact on parking.
