The Parish Council has now had the opportunity to consider this latest report and to hear the views of those residents who will be affected by the choice of the Conkers' site for 12 new dwellings.

The Council recognises the need for new affordable housing in the village and we accepted the target of 16 new dwellings up to 2026.

The Council also recognises the effort made to preserve the "Green Belt" and that strategic parts of the village are areas of outstanding natural beauty and therefore unsuitable for housing development.

Whilst we had meetings with the responsible Planning Officer, the Council did not have the opportunity to state its own views of the various sites submitted by residents, not helped by his departure before publication of the original report dated December 2016.

As such the implications of the Conkers' proposals were not debated with Rother and the Parish Council has been effectively faced with a fait accompli. Therefore, it is the Parish Council's view that due process was not followed in this regard.

The latest report states (11.132) that "no new sites have come forward recently... " but to our knowledge no such request has been made.

We accept the situation regarding the site ID6 but question whether a full evaluation has been undertaken to justify its rejection. Before any final decision is made the Pansh Council considers a full appraisal of this site to be undertaken on the basis this may be a more appropriate alternative.

The Conkers' site has to be accessed via a relatively narrow road where householders in some instances need to park vehicles on the roadside and it is also used as access for farm machinery. Whilst only a temporary problem, the disruption during construction of the dwellings will also cause considerable problems for the Elmsmead residents. In the longer term, it is of concern that increased usage will harm the quality of life for these residents and we would support the petitioners in their anxieties about this strategy.

We would also ask whether the use of Rural Exception Sites has been considered as an alternative way of achieving the affordable housing we need albeit outside of the development envelope. If the village is to avoid becoming increasingly a retirement/second home village (fuelled by the attractiveness of our local Public House, shop and Post Office) the opportunities by this site allocation review need to be explored further without the selection of an area that conveniently suits a short-term fix which has considerable access challenges.

We now ask you to pass our comments on to the Planning Inspector for his consideration as part of the consultation.

Yours Sincerely,
Mary Philo
Clerk to Iden Parish Council