1. The present boundary (shown in black on Inset Map 6 attached) is an intrusion into the natural eastern boundary of the Hilltop curtilage (shown in red). There are two properties to the north and three properties to the south ranged across a length similar to the Hilltop curtilage. The line of the boundary goes markedly inwards at Hilltop and also markedly outwards below. It fails to follow a straighter line permitting Hilltop to develop eastwards in line with the others, and yet allows properties to the south far more scope to extend even further eastwards. This is unjustified in that it is illogical, inconsistent and discriminatory. The full curtilage of Hilltop is clearly within the village boundary, clearly not 'countryside', and all parts within the village should locally have equal opportunity for development where space and access permit.

2. The site currently has outline planning permission (RR/2009/138/P) for two detached dwellings inside the black line, whereas spreading of the buildings across the full site towards the red line (as shown) permits improvements in their positioning, appearance, and landscaping, in line with the shape of the site and reflecting the position, size and character of adjacent properties. It is unjustified and ineffective that the development boundary, by obliging the two dwellings to be pressed towards the western side of the site, does not make the best use of available land, particularly as -

2a. The Strategic Housing Land Allocation Assessment includes the full site curtilage (site BR1) with the comment 'Treat as application for development boundary extension to rear garden boundary' and at paragraph 4.9 (table 2) states that 'very small sites abutting development boundaries may be considered as small scale amendments to the development boundary'.

2b. Rother District Local Plan Housing Policy HG9 states that 'extension of curtilage may be permitted if it is to a natural boundary or a logical rounding off', which ought logically to include 'extension of development boundary'.

3. The response to my objection to the present line of the development boundary (Core Strategy Consultation Representation ID 19579 attached) states that 'objections regarding future development boundaries can be discussed within the Site Allocations DPD'. I object strongly to this response as procedurally unjustified in that the site has already been allocated two dwellings for which outline planning permission was obtained two years ago, so it is not a question of 'future development boundaries' or of future site allocations, but the immediate and overdue revision of the present boundary to accommodate the best positioning of the two outline approved dwellings. It is proper that once a particular site has been allocated, any appropriate revision to the boundary be effected at the same time and not postponed to a future DPD.