See attached.

Was trying to find the option to comment on Peasmarsh (q52) which asked for other sites in Peasmarsh- so these comment relate mainly to that question but also relevant to this one.

It is noted site at Pond Cottage PEA0039 was rejected as unsuitable but the reasons for not allocating this are inaccurate. This is relation to comments regarding surface water flooding and it should be made clear this does not affect the significant part of the site as alleged- it is only the outer edge and this can be mitigated and improved by SUDS as shown in the submitted details in the current pending application RR/2025/141 and the FRA.

Also it is noted the local plan has allocated land for as little as 5 houses. The heritage documents show 10 apartments for older person housing can be accommodated within pending application RR/2025/141 without harm and which is supported by heritage documents and thus this site can deliver specialist housing at a scale suitable for allocation on the site in a sustainable location and in the central part of the village. This could be easily achieved via a number of ways and locations in the site. Adjacent land is also owned by the same owner.
Thus this site should be reconsidered and allocated for specialist housing and the owner would happy to provide reports/assessments and masterplan options if this is helpful. There are also benefits to the long term conservation of the listed building

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 My concerns about the local strategy
with regards to Peasmarsh developments is that it meets the requirements of social having, however other local villages have not been developed as much as Peasmarsh and as a result, Peasmarsh has been identified for development and expansion with no consideration for other areas.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No 2
The proposed development plan is mixed as it does not reflect a balanced view of the Rother District in its entire scape. In addition, with regards to Peasmarsh, the infrastructure: the area does not meet present needs and flooding, pot holes, outages and problems with flooding only exacerbated with more dwellings.

PART 2 Chapter 3 No 3
Employment is important but is met in Rye itself, local hotels and restaurants and Jempsons itself. Building more homes, will then expand more shops and retailing in the future that then takes away the character of the village, to just find land to build, which is not a responsible use of planning or resources.

PART 2 CHAPTER 4
It is good to see that Rother are making plans for the future, however with regards to-the social and critical infrastructure ie bus stops, with the homes and temporary accommodation proposed in the village and is PE5, will be offset with increased impact an policing, social care, doctors, and maintenance and upkeep due to excessive use of roads ie more potholes as well as the demographics of the village and available school spaces and resources.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7
My concern with the local plan, is it is not feasable both in respecting nature, environment and also the very essence of the village. The clientel or the size of PE5 goes against regulation of planning in addition and key to all given the Unitary authority proposals, it seems rushed through with no active consultation understanding especially PE5. It cannot protect and enhance of deciduous woodland due to felling and effect on environment.

PART 3 CHAPTER 6 NO.13
Concerns above, but in addition the impact on natural and economic and housing strategy for the area. as well as present area not meeting the needs of flooding, excessive housing, basic infrastructure already strugging to cope. Adapting an approach already imposed will also put strain on further Services ie education, policing etc already not being met.

PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
I do not believe that other areas have been considered in neighbouring villages and that Peasmarsh becomes an expensive area and loses its character in addition proposals for the village particularly PE5, does not take into account present under usage of the business units and do not allow for parking, further exhausted resources both natural, employment etc. By having similar focus as in other villages and areas mean that employment and resources are evenly spread OUT and also with the move to a super-council, would it not better for further ideas and consultation after re-organisation of local government has been need and local elections taken place ie after May 2026 elections as this is also move ethical and political
minded in the sense takes in the needs and wants of constituents council planning. I appose the plans.
PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No. 47
I am concerned with Rothers considerations and plans for Peasmarsh would-it not be further local Parish council then the issues raised an your site is not democratic but autocratic. Unless people are made aware publically and meetings arranged how can open and meaningful conversations take place. The area of the Maltings is beautiful but does not take into account two car families. As a result the new development of social and part owned part rent previously constructed have lack of parking and regularly block the highway. The proposed extension the Business path and to allocation of flats as the hectorage means that here are no guarantees that present problems, lack of parking, lack of resources ie maintenance of present social having by Sothern Housing and other Housing Associations as well as consider areas over criminal activities, draining critical resources like education and need for more teacher, buildings etc. as well as poor sewerage, increased lighting etc. my wary is that Peamarsh will become an area that destroys the community and the very beauty and heart of the village, something that has not ben taken into consideration.

I would propose a feasibility study drawn up with the Parish council and locals and to offer other suggestions such as neighbouring areas such as Beckley and other neighbouring villages, where resources and facilities are not in one area and meet the needs of all.

As local residents we very much oppose the plans to build 143 new properties in this village.
There is limited space, limited doctors & dentists appointments available now, let alone if these plans and those in surrounding villages go ahead.
The village would lose its identity.
There have long been problems with water/drainage coming from the fields mentioned as a possible site.
Also, the families/children that have grown up here have no opportunity to remain.
Previous new builds have given priority to people from outside while our children cannot afford to remain. This has long been a cherished village with beautiful surroundings that should be protected with ancient [protected species] & bat colonies etc.
This is a peaceful friendly village that would lose its identity.
We feel very strongly about this issue as it seems does every Peasmarsh resident. We feel very strongly that this whole area TN31 is a beautiful part of the country that should not have hundreds of new properties built, which we presume very strongly will be built for [redacted].
Rye Harbour especially is a site of special scientific interest with species of birds etc. that travel from far away — this also should not be disrupted.
We feel very strongly that this country is losing its identity and we have no say in what happens.

Question 47
PEI – PES
AS LOCAL RESIDENTS WE VERY MUCH OPPOSE THE PLANS TO BUILD 143 NEW PROPERTIES IN THIS VILLAGE.
THERE IS LIMITED SPACE, LIMITED DOCTORS / DENTIST APPOINTMENTS AVAILABLE NOW LET ALONE IF THESE PLANS & THOSE OF SURROUNDING VILLAGES GO AHEAD.
THE VILLAGE WOULD I BELIEVE SUFFER AND LOSE ITS IDENTITY.
THERE HAVE LONG BEEN PROBLEMS WITH WATER / DRAINAGE COMING FROM THE FIELDS MENTIONED AS A PROBABLE SITE.
ALSO THE FAMILIES / CHILDREN THAT HAVE GROWN UP HERE HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN — PREVIOUS NEW BUILDS HAVE GIVEN PRIORITY TO PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE WHILE OUR CHILDREN CANNOT AFFORD TO REMAIN.
THIS HAS LONG BEEN A CHERISHED VILLAGE WITH BEAUTIFUL SURROUNDINGS HAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED — [PROTECTED SPECIES], BAT COLONIES ETC.
THIS IS A PEACEFUL, FRIENDLY VILLAGE THAT WOULD LOSE ITS IDENTITY AND SOUL.
WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AS IT SEEMS DOES EVERY PEASMARSH RESIDENT.
Question 52
FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS WHOLE AREA TN31 IS A BEAUTIFUL PART OF THE COUNTRY THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE 100’s OF NEW PROPERTIES BUILT WHICH WE PRESUME VERY STRONGLY WILL BE BUILT FOR [REDACTED].
RYE HARBOUR ESPECIALLY IS A SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST WITH SPECIES OF BIRD ETC. THAT TRAVEL FROM FAR AWAY — THIS ALSO SHOULD NOT BE DISRUPTED.
WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS COUNTRY IS LOSING ITS IDENTITY AND WE HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS.

Response to Site Allocation Consultation/Rother Local Plan 2025/2042
Background
Iden is a small Domesday village with 258 dwellings and a population of approx. 500 residents.
58 social housing dwellings built in 1960/70s but now at least half are owner occupied.
39 properties have grade 2 listed status- above average.
Planning policy has been to maintain the open spaces/agricultural fields and not permit ribbon development as Iden is in area of outstanding beauty.
For many years any new developments have had to be within a tightly drawn envelope.
This has resulted in:-
• Only 5 new properties built in past 55 years
• Many properties enlarged
• Above average inflation in property values and the perception that Iden is a desirable village to live, with shop/post office and other attractions ( playing field/bowls club/now shortly to be restored pub etc)
• As a result of above, demography has changed with increasing number of retired moving in replacing younger families and importantly what was once an artisan community.
• In recent years, Iden has lost its 3 football and one of the cricket teams, with the remainder composed entirely of non residents.
• Our modernised play area used mainly by visiting families
• The village has become increasingly vulnerable to properties being used as holiday lets and Airbnb
• Local Community groups being under resourced
The Parish Council has always acknowledged that there is a chronic need for new affordable housing in order to bring in younger families and to help restore a balanced community. This has meant looking beyond the existing development envelope by using a brown field site only half a mile from the village centre. However this “island Development” has consistently been rejected for the reasons of employment/isolation and possibility that this would open up the adjoining fields for building.

Because of the tight and inflexible development envelope, the Parish Council has not be persuaded to formulate a Neighbourhood Plan, particularly as Iden is such a relatively small village. However and importantly, the Council has consistently argued for the brownfield site to be considered which frustratingly has always been rejected.
There are also infrastructure issues, education and medical services that have always to be taken into account wherever new development is considered.

Current situation
Site IDI Land south of Elmsmead
Despite much opposition, including from the Parish Council, 15 new dwellings have been agreed and despite the affordability objective, the developers are now seeking this requirement to be removed.
The consultation for this site began in 2013 and permission only granted a few months ago. Although now subject to the afore mentioned request, considerable environmental conditions also need to be overcome.
Site ID2 Land at Street Field Main Street Iden
The Parish Council has carefully considered the proposal for 10 new dwellings on this site and taken due notice of public opinions.
Whilst it reiterates its wish for new affordable housing in the village, the Parish Council is opposed to the usage of this site for the following reasons:-
• This field has always been regarded as an important part of the outstanding natural beauty Iden has enjoyed and for this reason, an application for just a temporary unit was rejected in 2010
• Over development in an area where, in close proximity there will be the agreed 15 new dwellings referred to above ( Conkers)
• Also cluster of 5 Grade 2 listed buildings nearby
• With the probable need to improve road access and pedestrian access with increased traffic, the entire character of this historic part of Iden will be changed
• The policy to squeeze as much new builds into an already full development envelope by making very limited exceptions is a short term fix when the wider aim of affordable home ownership will remain an imperative
• Creeping development in this way is only going to exacerbate Iden’s housing problem
• There is no evidence that they will not become second homes or holiday lets. Interestingly, since 2020, there are now 10 more airbnb’s in the village and RDC is wanting to build 10 new homes!
• The village does not want street lighting which will probably be a condition if these 10 houses are built. We value our dark skies.
• Iden lies within the High Weald National Landscape where national policy gives extra weight to conserving landscape character. This site does not conform to this standard
• The Council does not believe that due consideration has been given to the alternative sites offered by landowners and it appears Street Field is an easier option.
• Importantly the Council has always supported a new housing development at the brown field site referred to above and whilst conditions have changed, Planning appear to retain closed minds.

Parish Council proposals
For 15 years at least, the Council has asked that the brown field site known as Orchards Farm, Wittersham Road Iden TN31 7XB be brought within the village envelope This large area has become rather dilapidated in recent years and was the subject of a planning application for 17 dwellings in 2011 which was rejected as not part of the development envelope, and that it would create an “island” site leaving the open spaces alongside vulnerable to development. Employment was also a factor
The village has always supported this site as ideal for a development of say 15 dwellings and small business units to replace the existing ones. Morfeys Removers use this site as a depot but also have a larger unit at Rye Harbour
We are of the view that a detailed study of this site should be undertaken as a viable alternative to Street Field and avoid the stretching of the existing village envelope as proposed. It would also avoid ribbon development and would be away from facing the road.
The Parish Council’s vision is that we have a community that consists of all generations with affordable housing that is being built for this purpose. Our hope that this will revitalise village life and activities. We do not want dwellings that could be let for short term purposes or homes for the retired

It is unacceptable for developers to plead they cannot afford to build low cost homes despite stated policy.
Our proposals match our expectations and importantly do not harm this village’s exceptional heritage and respect the ancient Domesday village.

It is disappointing that the Parish Council was not formally consulted on these proposals before they were put out into the public domain. The Council wishes to remain proactive in how it views new developments in the village and be able to respond to what its residents want.
However, this consultation process appears to be a something that is merely going through a pre determined exercise and before anything further is decided, the Parish Council would like to meet with representatives from the Planning Department It is important that the Council can work constructively with the decision makers.










Response to Site Allocation Consultation/Rother Local Plan 2025/2042
Background
Iden is a small Domesday village with 258 dwellings and a population of approx. 500 residents.
58 social housing dwellings built in 1960/70s but now at least half are owner occupied.
39 properties have grade 2 listed status- above average.
Planning policy has been to maintain the open spaces/agricultural fields and not permit ribbon development as Iden is in area of outstanding beauty.
For many years any new developments have had to be within a tightly drawn envelope.
This has resulted in:-
• Only 5 new properties built in past 55 years
• Many properties enlarged
• Above average inflation in property values and the perception that Iden is a desirable village to live, with shop/post office and other attractions ( playing field/bowls club/now shortly to be restored pub etc)
• As a result of above, demography has changed with increasing number of retired moving in replacing younger families and importantly what was once an artisan community.
• In recent years, Iden has lost its 3 football and one of the cricket teams, with the remainder composed entirely of non residents.
• Our modernised play area used mainly by visiting families
• The village has become increasingly vulnerable to properties being used as holiday lets and Airbnb
• Local Community groups being under resourced
The Parish Council has always acknowledged that there is a chronic need for new affordable housing in order to bring in younger families and to help restore a balanced community. This has meant looking beyond the existing development envelope by using a brown field site only half a mile from the village centre. However this “island Development” has consistently been rejected for the reasons of employment/isolation and possibility that this would open up the adjoining fields for building.

Because of the tight and inflexible development envelope, the Parish Council has not be persuaded to formulate a Neighbourhood Plan, particularly as Iden is such a relatively small village. However and importantly, the Council has consistently argued for the brownfield site to be considered which frustratingly has always been rejected.
There are also infrastructure issues, education and medical services that have always to be taken into account wherever new development is considered.

Current situation
Site IDI Land south of Elmsmead
Despite much opposition, including from the Parish Council, 15 new dwellings have been agreed and despite the affordability objective, the developers are now seeking this requirement to be removed.
The consultation for this site began in 2013 and permission only granted a few months ago. Although now subject to the afore mentioned request, considerable environmental conditions also need to be overcome.
Site ID2 Land at Street Field Main Street Iden
The Parish Council has carefully considered the proposal for 10 new dwellings on this site and taken due notice of public opinions.
Whilst it reiterates its wish for new affordable housing in the village, the Parish Council is opposed to the usage of this site for the following reasons:-
• This field has always been regarded as an important part of the outstanding natural beauty Iden has enjoyed and for this reason, an application for just a temporary unit was rejected in 2010
• Over development in an area where, in close proximity there will be the agreed 15 new dwellings referred to above ( Conkers)
• Also cluster of 5 Grade 2 listed buildings nearby
• With the probable need to improve road access and pedestrian access with increased traffic, the entire character of this historic part of Iden will be changed
• The policy to squeeze as much new builds into an already full development envelope by making very limited exceptions is a short term fix when the wider aim of affordable home ownership will remain an imperative
• Creeping development in this way is only going to exacerbate Iden’s housing problem
• There is no evidence that they will not become second homes or holiday lets. Interestingly, since 2020, there are now 10 more airbnb’s in the village and RDC is wanting to build 10 new homes!
• The village does not want street lighting which will probably be a condition if these 10 houses are built. We value our dark skies.
• Iden lies within the High Weald National Landscape where national policy gives extra weight to conserving landscape character. This site does not conform to this standard
• The Council does not believe that due consideration has been given to the alternative sites offered by landowners and it appears Street Field is an easier option.
• Importantly the Council has always supported a new housing development at the brown field site referred to above and whilst conditions have changed, Planning appear to retain closed minds.

Parish Council proposals
For 15 years at least, the Council has asked that the brown field site known as Orchards Farm, Wittersham Road Iden TN31 7XB be brought within the village envelope This large area has become rather dilapidated in recent years and was the subject of a planning application for 17 dwellings in 2011 which was rejected as not part of the development envelope, and that it would create an “island” site leaving the open spaces alongside vulnerable to development. Employment was also a factor
The village has always supported this site as ideal for a development of say 15 dwellings and small business units to replace the existing ones. Morfeys Removers use this site as a depot but also have a larger unit at Rye Harbour
We are of the view that a detailed study of this site should be undertaken as a viable alternative to Street Field and avoid the stretching of the existing village envelope as proposed. It would also avoid ribbon development and would be away from facing the road.
The Parish Council’s vision is that we have a community that consists of all generations with affordable housing that is being built for this purpose. Our hope that this will revitalise village life and activities. We do not want dwellings that could be let for short term purposes or homes for the retired

It is unacceptable for developers to plead they cannot afford to build low cost homes despite stated policy.
Our proposals match our expectations and importantly do not harm this village’s exceptional heritage and respect the ancient Domesday village.

It is disappointing that the Parish Council was not formally consulted on these proposals before they were put out into the public domain. The Council wishes to remain proactive in how it views new developments in the village and be able to respond to what its residents want.
However, this consultation process appears to be a something that is merely going through a pre determined exercise and before anything further is decided, the Parish Council would like to meet with representatives from the Planning Department It is important that the Council can work constructively with the decision makers.

















Response to Site Allocation Consultation/Rother Local Plan 2025/2042
Background
Iden is a small Domesday village with 258 dwellings and a population of approx. 500 residents.
58 social housing dwellings built in 1960/70s but now at least half are owner occupied.
39 properties have grade 2 listed status- above average.
Planning policy has been to maintain the open spaces/agricultural fields and not permit ribbon development as Iden is in area of outstanding beauty.
For many years any new developments have had to be within a tightly drawn envelope.
This has resulted in:-
• Only 5 new properties built in past 55 years
• Many properties enlarged
• Above average inflation in property values and the perception that Iden is a desirable village to live, with shop/post office and other attractions ( playing field/bowls club/now shortly to be restored pub etc)
• As a result of above, demography has changed with increasing number of retired moving in replacing younger families and importantly what was once an artisan community.
• In recent years, Iden has lost its 3 football and one of the cricket teams, with the remainder composed entirely of non residents.
• Our modernised play area used mainly by visiting families
• The village has become increasingly vulnerable to properties being used as holiday lets and Airbnb
• Local Community groups being under resourced
The Parish Council has always acknowledged that there is a chronic need for new affordable housing in order to bring in younger families and to help restore a balanced community. This has meant looking beyond the existing development envelope by using a brown field site only half a mile from the village centre. However this “island Development” has consistently been rejected for the reasons of employment/isolation and possibility that this would open up the adjoining fields for building.

Because of the tight and inflexible development envelope, the Parish Council has not be persuaded to formulate a Neighbourhood Plan, particularly as Iden is such a relatively small village. However and importantly, the Council has consistently argued for the brownfield site to be considered which frustratingly has always been rejected.
There are also infrastructure issues, education and medical services that have always to be taken into account wherever new development is considered.

Current situation
Site IDI Land south of Elmsmead
Despite much opposition, including from the Parish Council, 15 new dwellings have been agreed and despite the affordability objective, the developers are now seeking this requirement to be removed.
The consultation for this site began in 2013 and permission only granted a few months ago. Although now subject to the afore mentioned request, considerable environmental conditions also need to be overcome.
Site ID2 Land at Street Field Main Street Iden
The Parish Council has carefully considered the proposal for 10 new dwellings on this site and taken due notice of public opinions.
Whilst it reiterates its wish for new affordable housing in the village, the Parish Council is opposed to the usage of this site for the following reasons:-
• This field has always been regarded as an important part of the outstanding natural beauty Iden has enjoyed and for this reason, an application for just a temporary unit was rejected in 2010
• Over development in an area where, in close proximity there will be the agreed 15 new dwellings referred to above ( Conkers)
• Also cluster of 5 Grade 2 listed buildings nearby
• With the probable need to improve road access and pedestrian access with increased traffic, the entire character of this historic part of Iden will be changed
• The policy to squeeze as much new builds into an already full development envelope by making very limited exceptions is a short term fix when the wider aim of affordable home ownership will remain an imperative
• Creeping development in this way is only going to exacerbate Iden’s housing problem
• There is no evidence that they will not become second homes or holiday lets. Interestingly, since 2020, there are now 10 more airbnb’s in the village and RDC is wanting to build 10 new homes!
• The village does not want street lighting which will probably be a condition if these 10 houses are built. We value our dark skies.
• Iden lies within the High Weald National Landscape where national policy gives extra weight to conserving landscape character. This site does not conform to this standard
• The Council does not believe that due consideration has been given to the alternative sites offered by landowners and it appears Street Field is an easier option.
• Importantly the Council has always supported a new housing development at the brown field site referred to above and whilst conditions have changed, Planning appear to retain closed minds.

Parish Council proposals
For 15 years at least, the Council has asked that the brown field site known as Orchards Farm, Wittersham Road Iden TN31 7XB be brought within the village envelope This large area has become rather dilapidated in recent years and was the subject of a planning application for 17 dwellings in 2011 which was rejected as not part of the development envelope, and that it would create an “island” site leaving the open spaces alongside vulnerable to development. Employment was also a factor
The village has always supported this site as ideal for a development of say 15 dwellings and small business units to replace the existing ones. Morfeys Removers use this site as a depot but also have a larger unit at Rye Harbour
We are of the view that a detailed study of this site should be undertaken as a viable alternative to Street Field and avoid the stretching of the existing village envelope as proposed. It would also avoid ribbon development and would be away from facing the road.
The Parish Council’s vision is that we have a community that consists of all generations with affordable housing that is being built for this purpose. Our hope that this will revitalise village life and activities. We do not want dwellings that could be let for short term purposes or homes for the retired

It is unacceptable for developers to plead they cannot afford to build low cost homes despite stated policy.
Our proposals match our expectations and importantly do not harm this village’s exceptional heritage and respect the ancient Domesday village.

It is disappointing that the Parish Council was not formally consulted on these proposals before they were put out into the public domain. The Council wishes to remain proactive in how it views new developments in the village and be able to respond to what its residents want.
However, this consultation process appears to be a something that is merely going through a pre determined exercise and before anything further is decided, the Parish Council would like to meet with representatives from the Planning Department It is important that the Council can work constructively with the decision makers.


















IDEN PARISH COUNCIL
Response to Site Allocation Consultation/Rother Local Plan 2025/2042
Background
Iden is a small Domesday village with 258 dwellings and a population of approx. 500 residents.
58 social housing dwellings built in 1960/70s but now at least half are owner occupied.
39 properties have grade 2 listed status- above average.
Planning policy has been to maintain the open spaces/agricultural fields and not permit ribbon development as Iden is in area of outstanding beauty.
For many years any new developments have had to be within a tightly drawn envelope.
This has resulted in:-
• Only 5 new properties built in past 55 years
• Many properties enlarged
• Above average inflation in property values and the perception that Iden is a desirable village to live, with shop/post office and other attractions ( playing field/bowls club/now shortly to be restored pub etc)
• As a result of above, demography has changed with increasing number of retired moving in replacing younger families and importantly what was once an artisan community.
• In recent years, Iden has lost its 3 football and one of the cricket teams, with the remainder composed entirely of non residents.
• Our modernised play area used mainly by visiting families
• The village has become increasingly vulnerable to properties being used as holiday lets and Airbnb
• Local Community groups being under resourced
The Parish Council has always acknowledged that there is a chronic need for new affordable housing in order to bring in younger families and to help restore a balanced community. This has meant looking beyond the existing development envelope by using a brown field site only half a mile from the village centre. However this “island Development” has consistently been rejected for the reasons of employment/isolation and possibility that this would open up the adjoining fields for building.

Because of the tight and inflexible development envelope, the Parish Council has not be persuaded to formulate a Neighbourhood Plan, particularly as Iden is such a relatively small village. However and importantly, the Council has consistently argued for the brownfield site to be considered which frustratingly has always been rejected.
There are also infrastructure issues, education and medical services that have always to be taken into account wherever new development is considered.

Current situation
Site IDI Land south of Elmsmead
Despite much opposition, including from the Parish Council, 15 new dwellings have been agreed and despite the affordability objective, the developers are now seeking this requirement to be removed.
The consultation for this site began in 2013 and permission only granted a few months ago. Although now subject to the afore mentioned request, considerable environmental conditions also need to be overcome.
Site ID2 Land at Street Field Main Street Iden
The Parish Council has carefully considered the proposal for 10 new dwellings on this site and taken due notice of public opinions.
Whilst it reiterates its wish for new affordable housing in the village, the Parish Council is opposed to the usage of this site for the following reasons:-
• This field has always been regarded as an important part of the outstanding natural beauty Iden has enjoyed and for this reason, an application for just a temporary unit was rejected in 2010
• Over development in an area where, in close proximity there will be the agreed 15 new dwellings referred to above ( Conkers)
• Also cluster of 5 Grade 2 listed buildings nearby
• With the probable need to improve road access and pedestrian access with increased traffic, the entire character of this historic part of Iden will be changed
• The policy to squeeze as much new builds into an already full development envelope by making very limited exceptions is a short term fix when the wider aim of affordable home ownership will remain an imperative
• Creeping development in this way is only going to exacerbate Iden’s housing problem
• There is no evidence that they will not become second homes or holiday lets. Interestingly, since 2020, there are now 10 more airbnb’s in the village and RDC is wanting to build 10 new homes!
• The village does not want street lighting which will probably be a condition if these 10 houses are built. We value our dark skies.
• Iden lies within the High Weald National Landscape where national policy gives extra weight to conserving landscape character. This site does not conform to this standard
• The Council does not believe that due consideration has been given to the alternative sites offered by landowners and it appears Street Field is an easier option.
• Importantly the Council has always supported a new housing development at the brown field site referred to above and whilst conditions have changed, Planning appear to retain closed minds.

Parish Council proposals
For 15 years at least, the Council has asked that the brown field site known as Orchards Farm, Wittersham Road Iden TN31 7XB be brought within the village envelope This large area has become rather dilapidated in recent years and was the subject of a planning application for 17 dwellings in 2011 which was rejected as not part of the development envelope, and that it would create an “island” site leaving the open spaces alongside vulnerable to development. Employment was also a factor
The village has always supported this site as ideal for a development of say 15 dwellings and small business units to replace the existing ones. Morfeys Removers use this site as a depot but also have a larger unit at Rye Harbour
We are of the view that a detailed study of this site should be undertaken as a viable alternative to Street Field and avoid the stretching of the existing village envelope as proposed. It would also avoid ribbon development and would be away from facing the road.
The Parish Council’s vision is that we have a community that consists of all generations with affordable housing that is being built for this purpose. Our hope that this will revitalise village life and activities. We do not want dwellings that could be let for short term purposes or homes for the retired

It is unacceptable for developers to plead they cannot afford to build low cost homes despite stated policy.
Our proposals match our expectations and importantly do not harm this village’s exceptional heritage and respect the ancient Domesday village.

It is disappointing that the Parish Council was not formally consulted on these proposals before they were put out into the public domain. The Council wishes to remain proactive in how it views new developments in the village and be able to respond to what its residents want.
However, this consultation process appears to be a something that is merely going through a pre determined exercise and before anything further is decided, the Parish Council would like to meet with representatives from the Planning Department It is important that the Council can work constructively with the decision makers.