Do Not Agree
I believe that the three sites as specified in the answer to the Question 81 should be the proposed development boundary in figure 109 and it should be amended to reflect this.
Reasons for objections to site PS24.
1. As stated previously access to this site is extremely dangerous from the main road and directly to myself and my family who are immediately tot he east of the property.
2. Drainage
a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS. The whole area is very poorly drained. The direct impact on adjacent properties would be a disaster.
b) Sewage. The drainage system that runs underneath the main street has blocked on many an occasion, therefore the extra load could not be sustained by the present system.

3. Impact on Amenity
This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of "no disturbance" is thus denied and loss of value in our houses.
b) Public Transport, of which the only forms is the bus service every two house and even more greatly reduced at weekends.
c) Doctors surgery - at the moment the only two choices are Northiam or Rye, each a drive or a bus journey away.
d) Dentist, the same options as the Doctors but not all will take NHS.
e) Employment, this is very limited in the area, combined with the assumption you have transport to get to a place of work and not relying on a poor transport system that doesn't correspond with train times.
f) Education. The village school is virtually up to full capacity.
g) Utilities. Gas pressure and broadband are already experiencing difficulties and failing the community, whilst upgrades are not a priority to the companies involved.