Rather more than 40 people in Iden made a submission to the original consultation in February 2017. We are now over 60 people (about 20% of the electoral roll) and we wish to reiterate the serious objection to the site you have chosen, ID1A. We note that you have paid some attention to the listed building. Rose Cottage, though we wonder what you can do that will protect it property. We also note that there is some attention paid to the neighbouring properties to the east and north of the proposed site.

However the fact remains that the access will be very poor and will adversely affect the people who now live in Elmsmead (particularly during construction, though we have been told that this does not count in your considerations). The residents of Elmsmead include a number of families with young children and we believe that their safety should be a prime consideration.

We previously suggested that the site ID6 should be considered as an exception site and you have rejected this on the basis that it is an industrial site. Its present use is, we believe, considerably for storage and there are only two people who live in Iden who work there. We believe that the small housing development would not seriously impinge on the village employment and the site is effectively a brown field site. A small housing development will improve the appearance of this part of the AONB. If it is used as an exception site this should prevent any infill and growth of the village to the north. We believe that the Parish Council (who were not properly consulted in the first stage of the process) are in favour of an exception site and that there are some other sites that could be used in this way.

We would emphasise that we are not against the provision of some affordable housing in the village and we know of several people who need it if they are to continue living where they grew up, but this is not the appropriate place.