I understand that there is a proposal to infill with houses on an area of land behind houses situated in Main Street in Peasmarsh. I have been made aware of the rough area although I have not seen an actual plan. I have tried to find the plan for this and for other alternative sites nearby but have been unable to find a map on the Rother web site. I am told it is well hidden on a very large document. The maps of the proposed sites I am informed are on pages 281 and 411 respectively but I have not been able to locate the documents.

I can therefor only make general objections. Firstly that any site that has any access from the main A268 can only be of great danger to the villagers of Peasmarsh. This road is an extremely busy road particularly used by many very large vehicles including farm vehicles. If as I am informed the proposed entrance to the favoured site is via the area of Pipins in Main Street I would say that the visibility from this area into the main road is very restricted and in my opinion dangerous.

I accept there is a need for new housing and that it should be shared around the County of Sussex, including Rother. However I have lived in this village for over 30 years and I believe that Peasmarsh has, in that time, had more than its fair share of infilling. I also believe that this proposal goes against the Government guidelines for building more properties. The government is proposing to build new garden Cities and towns with the idea that that there should be open spaces where
there are dwellings. However in Peasmarsh the proposition is to infill the green spaces around and behind existing buildings. This has already been done in two previous building projects at the Mailings and the site of the old Parleys Garage and large area behind and around it.

There should be no more infilling of the village and if it is accepted that Peasmarsh must take more housing then a site around the edges of the village should be considered before any decision is made. However I would have thought that there are other areas in Rother that should be considered where little building has taken place.

Other factors that should be taken into consideration should be Public Transport (Very poor). No industry or other employment in the village, an increase in young people particularly from the more affordable homes, will need more schooling which is not available, and the lack of other amenities such as decent drainage. A few years ago there were several instances of flood damage at the bottom end of the village because of the poor drainage.

I can say little else at this stage as I have not had a proper sight of the proposals even though I contacted the Council on 01424 787639 as advised by the Council Officer in Rye Library. All I got on that number was an answering machine and although I left my email details I did not even get an acknowledgement. Nothing new there as Rother District only appears interested in anything to do with Bexhill.

I shall have to submit this opposition today in its present form as I understand that all objections have to be in by the 20 February.