Apart from why are Rother proposing an extra 50 houses in Peasmarsh when the infrastructure in Peasmarsh is so poor; 2 hourly bus service during the day, no doctors surgery, primary school full and where are the jobs? To name but a few problems.

I object to the proposed site PS24 because this site was previously rejected and the reasons have not changed. In addition a single large site would be most detrimental to the present character of the village. The site entrance remains too narrow, barely 10 metres wide, one house stands across the whole site at present, the garden behind is the same width before it narrows to under 6 metres. This bottleneck is the access to the 3 acres for the building land behind Pippins, to build 45 houses. How do the planners see this working? How will there be access for service vehicles like dustman, fire engines to flow in and out? How will the building contractors get access to the site? This is the only access to the site. Where will the footpaths be sited? But my main concern / worry is the access to the proposed houses, after they are built, from Main Street. The narrow site entrance from the south, is on a bend in the road and on a hill, from the north the site line in a brow of a hill with no sight of vehicles coming up the hill from that direction, Do ESCC really agree to this as ok? I feel strongly this area is an accident waiting to happen. We know from our village 'speed watch' that cars regularly exceed the speed limit here. This is unacceptable to the occupiers either side of Pippins. Plus this site is badly drained which is a major concern for the lower lying houses to the eastern side of the site.
They already face flooding from the run off from site ponds and stream and this would be further exuberated by development here. Such damage is considered unacceptable within this proposal.

The other three suggested sites, PS5 and PS6 off Tanhouse Lane and PS7, do not have poor vehicle access and RDC, in an email dated 2014 from Richard Wilson, stating these sites as being better sites!

So why is Pippins being considered now? I can only think it is because the owners have agreed to sell the land and this makes RDC's life easier; a sad day when planners just take an easy option rather than what is best for the village.



1) Statement - Some 45 dwellings-are provided as shown on the Policies Map, of which 40% are affordable
Amend to read - Some 45 dwellings-are provided as shown on the Policies Map, of which a minimum of 60% are affordable
Reason for amendment - To provide housing for people who would otherwise not be able to buy decent homes and 40% is insufficient if this is in any way meant to be meaningful goal.

II) Statement - vehicle access is to Main Street to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority
Amend to read - Vehicle access to Main Street to the satisfaction of an independent authority not associated with either RDC or ESCC
Reason for amendment - To guarantee the impartiality of the decision as to the suitability of this access.

Ill) Statement - additional pedestrian/cycle access:
(a) To the north-east of the site, connecting down the length of the eastern boundary via a green corridor.
(b) Southward connecting to the footpath network.
Amend to read - (a) To the north-east of the site, connecting down the length of the eastern boundary a permeable pavement as part of the green corridor to facilitate pedestrian access from the north east of the site.
Reason for amendment - A green corridor during the winter months and periods of sustained wet weather will become impractical during these periods due to mud, the limited amount of daylight hours and a general lack of street lighting in Peasmarsh
No amendments to (b)

IV) Statement - Provision of a children's play area, which should be subject to passive surveillance from residential frontages.
No amendments

V) Statement - Provision of open space to the south of the site, incorporating the traditional orchard within it, with funding arrangements for on-going management to maintain as open space and biodiversity interest.
Amend to read - Provision of open space to the south of the site, incorporating the traditional orchard within it, with funding arrangements for on-going management from either central government, ESCC or RDC to maintain as open space and biodiversity interest Reason for amendment - To ensure that residents of Peasmarsh are protected from having to pay for this ongoing maintenance bill via the parish precept settlement.

VI) Statement -Retention of other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features so far as reasonably practicable, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond.
Amend to read - Retention of other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond.
Reason for amendment - So far as reasonably practicable is very loose wording and is dependent upon the interpretation of what practicable would mean.

VII) Statement - Maintenance and reinforcement existing landscaped boundaries around the site and creation of new ones on exposed western edges.
Amend to read - Maintenance and reinforcement existing landscaped boundaries around the site and creation of new ones on exposed western edges by either central government, ESCC or RDC.
Reason for amendment - To ensure that residents of Peasmarsh are protected from having to pay for this ongoing maintenance bill via the parish precept settlement.