In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.

In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:

1. Road Access: Access onto the busy 4268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this criterion because:

(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road.

(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.

In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.

As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasrnarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main
drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity

Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. 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.

(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such ongoing disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines.

(c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common
walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish.

(d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.

4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.