Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22611
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Hugh Kermode
I do not agree that ID1a should be the preferred site for development at Iden, for reasons of:
1. access - narrow road on a bend
2. negative impact on the largest number of residents
3. development of a greenfield site when a brownfield site is available
ID6 should be preferred as it is:
1. a brownfield site with existing buildings
2. on a straight road
3. nearer to many village amenities than ID1a
I don't agree that the greenfield site ID1a should be preferred. Development here will have a negative impact on the most number of residents. Proposed access is via Elmsmead - the highest density housing in Iden. Elmsmead is not capable of sustaining the extra traffic during the construction phase or when completed.
ID6 is more suitable - a brownfield site with strong boundaries, on a straight road. Housing here would replace existing warehouse buildings with no detrimental visual impact on the AONB. If treated as an Exception Site, this need not add development pressure to Wittersham Road.
15.56 states that the sites north of the village (including ID6) are detached and unsustainable - this is not correct.
ID6 is nearer to Iden Stores than ID1a (337m vs 370m)
ID6 is nearer to All Saints Church than ID1a (585m vs 611m)
ID6 is nearer to the bus southbound to Rye for schools and rail links (67m vs 276m)
ID6 is nearer to The Bell Public House than ID1a (370m vs 387m)