Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22620

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hugh Kermode

Representation Summary:

I do not agree with the proposed development boundary. It should remain as drawn in 2006, with an Exception Site at ID6 - preserving the character of Iden and preventing "creep".

The development boundary (2006) was a factor in the purchasing decisions of several properties in Iden and have part of the property searches. Development of ID1a will have a negative impact on the value of many properties.

The proposal for ID1a will raise housing density to approx 31 dwellings per hectare in this part of Iden - par with a Garden City and inappropriate for a rural village.

Full text:

I do not agree with the proposed development boundary. It should remain as drawn in 2006, with an Exception Site at ID6 - preserving the character of Iden and preventing "creep".

The development boundary (2006) was a factor in the purchasing decisions of several properties in Iden and have part of the property searches. Development of ID1a will have a negative impact on the value of many properties.

The proposal for ID1a will raise housing density to approx 31 dwellings per hectare in this part of Iden - par with a Garden City and inappropriate for a rural village.