11.109
Your plan says that "the site is within AONB and it is visually enclosed and the impact on the AONB would be limited" This is not so for the people living around it. The AONB is very visible and the reason many of those people bought their homes. Such a site will be extremely visible.

It does not represent a "logical extension to the built up area", nor does it "relate well to existing developments on Waites Lane and Pett level road" This site would sit immediately at the edge of our back gardens along Pett level road. The buildings would not be in keeping with the dwellings or their layouts in this road.

11.119
Background evidence that helped support the current plan was taken from the defunct Neighbourhood plan. 815 surveys were distributed for that plan and only 120 were completed. (A few of these proposed the East field to be built on only as a last measure). None of this is a representative sample for such a plan to be made.

Where did the requirement for 30 more dwellings to be built in Fairlight come from?
Rother has a need to build more homes in line with government requirements but this does not have to be in Fairlight. Your report acknowledges there already is " a limited range of services in Fairlight despite a larger population than many other Rother villages".

Why bring in more people? What about the Queensway empty site?

Other issues for opposing the site:

Surface water is a continual problem in our gardens in Pett level road and in the road itself.

An entrance on a virtually blind corner of Pett level road would be extremely dangerous especially for elderly people going in and out.

There will already be added traffic from the Market Garden site and the pub when it reopens, on our country "lanes" which are overstretched as it is.