QUESTION 77: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 21988
Received: 26/12/2016
Respondent: Mr Christopher Turk
Any building should be to the back of the adjacent plot overlooking the fields thus maintaining privacy and access on to main road to side of conkers where double garage stands. This would be less intrusive and pose less risk to children and elderly in Elmsmead.
Any building should be to the back of the adjacent plot overlooking the fields thus maintaining privacy and access on to main road to side of conkers where double garage stands. This would be less intrusive and pose less risk to children and elderly in Elmsmead.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22046
Received: 04/01/2017
Respondent: Mr John Owen
The development of the proposed site will almost inevitably lead to further construction of dwellings in the field to the north and west of the site. This would place a huge strain on the cast iron high-pressure sewer that services Iden, one with which the existing sewer will not be able to cope with.
In the past six or seven years the sewer has burst five times where it crosses my land at Mockbeggar Cottage. Southern Water state that renewing the sewer is not part of their policy in the foreseeable future.
The development of the proposed site will almost inevitably lead to further construction of dwellings in the field to the north and west of the site. This would place a huge strain on the cast iron high-pressure sewer that services Iden, one with which the existing sewer will not be able to cope with.
In the past six or seven years the sewer has burst five times where it crosses my land at Mockbeggar Cottage. Southern Water state that renewing the sewer is not part of their policy in the foreseeable future.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22223
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: Elmsmead Protection Group
Number of people: 42
We do not agree with the proposed development boundary and believe it should remain as it is but with the addition of an Exception Site at ID6.
We do not agree with the proposed development boundary and believe it should remain as it is but with the addition of an Exception Site at ID6.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22620
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Hugh Kermode
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.
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.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23587
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Landscape
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS
Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.
Landscape
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS
Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23661
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Iden
The site will require archaeological assessment to clarify risk -the boundary could then be modified to exclude significant archaeological remains.
AMBER
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 to clarify risk -the boundary could then be modified to exclude significant archaeological remains.
AMBER
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23749
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Ecology
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Iden
Yes
Ecology
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Iden
Yes