Policy IDE1: Land south of Elmsmead, Iden

There is concern in the village that there is renewed planning interest in building on the land to the south of Elmsmead.
This would be a disaster for the people who live in Elmsmead because it is a narrow road with a lot of cars parked in the road an others on drives needing access to the road. People who live on Main Street who have no parking space or have visitors also parked on Elmsmead.
They would find life very difficult when construction traffic were accessing the site and new residents on the site were using Elmsmead. Drivers find driving out of Elmsmead hazardous because traffic on Main street is moving very fast and since the building work in Tenterden there is a lot more heavy traffic coming round the bend by the entrance to the village hall. There is an alternative site in the village, there is a brownfield site on the west side of Wittersham Road. Access is easy and hazard free because the road is straight, also the owner of the site is willing to sell.

Proposed development of land ID1a south of Elmstead in Iden Rye
I am writing to you with my concerns with reference to the above. Indeed I am surprised that this site is again being proposed as it has been rejected in the past.
Residents like myself on Main Street already have to exit our property with extreme caution, due to the bends and the speed of the traffic through the village, and Elmstead exit is close to the bends both ways so it is already difficult and unsafe to exit.
I believe there is an alternative site ID6 Wittersham Road to which the exit would have clear views both ways of approaching traffic. I also have walked from this site (there is a hairdressers opposite) and it takes 5 minutes walks to the village shop which can be seen from the said site, so surely this should not be classed as outside the village envelope!!!! And suggest ID6 as alternative site with regards to road safety. I believe the businesses involved in this site would relocate to Rye harbour without the loss of jobs.
Finally I understand the need for affordable housing but surely 16 houses on ID6 is a better option than 12 on IDI1.
In the past we applied for planning to make some changes to our property, which was rejected because it is in a village of outstanding beauty. So let's keep is safe from the extra traffic and the restricted views when attempting to exit Elmstead.
I hope you will give this your kind attention, and look forward to an early reply.

Proposed Development of Land lD1a South of Elmsmead In Iden Rye

I am writing further to a recent residents' consultative meeting at which concerns over the proposed development were aired. An alternative proposal
favoured by Iden Parish Council for permitting development on site IDS
(Witterham Road) was rejected on the grounds that (i) it was outside the
strategic planning area and (ii) involved the demolition of an industrial site
being a source of employment.

Arguments against the Elmswood site are:
Limited current access to Elmsmead from Main Street (difficulty for delivery
vehicles, re-cycling trucks and emergency services)
Poor lines of sight for egress
Poor turning space for commercial vehicles
Prolonged duration of construction (in excess of 12 months) access to site of
heavy transport, cranes, concrete mixers, excavators. etc.

Arguments for Alternative Wittersham Road Site:
We urge the Inspector to re-consider the Wittersham Road site for the following reasons:
It is the Parish Council's preferred option.
The owner has indicated a willingness to relocate businesses within the
vicinity of Rye/Rye Harbour thereby retaining local employment The site is 30 metres closer to the village shop/post office.

New properties would benefit from rural outlook over orchards (a feature
which makes Iden virtually unique without in-fill or ribbon development in the
area).

The development would link the village centre with established development
around Reader's Corner.

Other Considerations:
Local services will need to be improved to provide public transport for work
and 16+ schooling not available in the Rye area.

Access through Elmsmead is unsuitable due to the following reasons 1. parking in Elmsmead is difficult with cars parked down on side of the road . Increased traffic would be a danger to residents especially children and elderly of which there are many . 2. construction traffic accessing the site would cause a hazard and be a danger leaving Elmsmead as the road junction is blind in both directions . 3 . The proposed development would create a increase of traffic accessing Elmsmead . The junction is dangerous and cars travelling down the main road frequently go faster than 30 . 4 . Rose cottage is a listed building and its outlook should be protected in the same way as the conkers and east view .

I realise that Iden needs new low cost housing and I am not against that, but feel the proposed site off Elsmead is not the right one. Another possible 24 cars coming and going out of Elsmead onto the already busy speeding traffic on the B2082 with blind corners left and right is not good and will make it even more difficult for local residents to cross the road. Parking is also a problem, and could cause great difficulty if emergency services are needed.
I feel site ID6 on the Wittersham Road would be much better. The site entrance would on a straight section of the Main Road and the site would be self contained

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

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.