QUESTION 75: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Iden? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

ID1r would be a better site for development as this would have less impact on existing residents. Any building could be carried out along the back of the plot backing on to the fields maintaining privacy for new houses and existing. Access from main road as it would be to dangerous through Elmsmead.

No objection to the proposed allocation of site ID 1a in Iden.

We strongly disagree with the preferred site as detailed in our answer to Q76 .The site that we prefer is ID6 which is a Brown Field Site, which also has good access on a straight section of road.

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)

The preferred site, is inappropriate for modern development in a small Doomsday village. Access is along a narrow residential road, full of parked cars, which joins the B2082 between two sharp corners. It would be difficult or impossible for emergency and construction traffic to negotiate. The development would obscure views from several dwellings, some of which are listed. It would cause major disruption.
Brownfield site ID6 is perfect; most of the infrastructure is in place, with excellent access on a long straight. New dwellings behind the tall hedge and would be less obtrusive. No other site should be considered.

No. Site ID6 - Orchards Farm, Wittersham Road is preferred.

In support of Orchards Farm, Wittersham Road.

Site ID6 is a brownfield site as being advocated in the shortly to be issued Government white paper and should be considered as an Exception site.
History: Until 2009 Orchard Farm was a fruit producing farm when it ceased to be viable. The buildings are at present used for a) joinery workshop and storage and b) removal lorry parking and storage. They do not meet modern standards of workplace.

There is employment on the site although only one person is a 'local'. The removal business is mainly for vehicle parking with minimal storage. Both of these businesses would be re-located to more suitable premises, possibly units at Rye Harbour.

An application for 18 dwellings was made in 2011 and was supported by the Parish Council but subsequently refused.

Location: Orchard Farm is located on Wittersham Road (B2082) on the Northern end of the village well within the 'envelope' of the village and there are some 17 dwellings beyond the site to the North and also several light industrial units.
Access: Access, from Wittersham Road, is existing and provides adequate visibility. As the land South and North are in the same ownership the existing hedgerows can be removed and re-aligned to further improve visibility. The Highway Authority recommend refusal of the 2011 application but at that time it was not a 30 mph restriction.

Pedestrian Access: Walking access from the village 'centre' (the shop and pub) is a few minutes walk and the village is served by the Rye/Tenterden bus service at regular intervals and also the Rye Town bus. A bus stop is situated 50 metres to the North. A footpath on the West side of Wittersham Road extends almost to the site and would be continued.

Proposal: The proposal is to provide 12 dwellings as designated by the Iden allocations plan. These to be of mixed value with 40% affordable homes.

Existing Buildings: The existing buildings are 'slab sided' and of no architectural merit at all.

Services: Electricity is already on site and would be adequate to service the proposal. Water is on site and available for the increased requirement.

Drainage: Foul drainage is on site but would need to be upgraded. If necessary a new connection could be provided further to the North t accommodate the necessary falls to alleviate raising any floor levels. Service water drainage is on site and the present drained area would probably not be increased. However a water course is available to the West and could be utilised possibly with the incorporation of an attenuation tank.

AONB: Although the site is in an AONB the development would be a great improvement and an 'uplift' to the village.

Screening to the West can be easily achieved and because the surrounding land is in the same ownership open area and play area can all be incorporated.

Landscape

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS

Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.

Archaeology

Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219

Iden

The site will require archaeological assessment, prior to being allocated, to clarify risk
-AMBER