QUESTION 81: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Peasmarsh? If not, which site should be preferred?

No objection to the proposed allocation of site PS24 in Peasmarsh. The Historic Landscape Characterisation classifies this site as late 19th century regular piecemeal enclosure with historic field boundaries that should be protected.

As a resident of Peasmarsh I agree that PS24 could be regarded as a favoured site although PS18 and PS15 sites should perhaps be preferred, particularly PS18, which has the advantage of a viable children's play area (which I believe is already progressing)

No, I do not agree. Is there evidence of a demand for this number of houses? The infrastructure is not geared up for this- where are the jobs, public transport, roads network, schools, doctors surgeries? Peasmarsh has poor facilities now- slow broadband, no street lighting, poor roads, unreliable utilities. Putting additional pressure on these networks will be detrimental. My property suffers from very poor drainage, and flooding, from land adjacent to the proposed development, and this will be directly affected. Alternative sites- PS6/5, or PS3 would be slightly more suitable but small (5-6 houses)developments only.

The site chosen will cause the most disruption to the local community and adversely affect the lives of residents bordering the development , not only during the building procedure but after the estate is completed . The infrastructure is simply not good enough to cope . The development is far to big to be completed all at once and should be split into two or three phases so that the village can slowly grow and problems can be addressed by the council , residents and utility companies as they arise . It would be beneficial if local residents are asked to comment on their village as they actually live there .
art from two public houses and a supermarket , which is closed on Sunday . No dentist or doctors surgery and no nursery provision for working families .There is limited employment opportunities and people either have to travel to larger conurbations or far afield as London . Some work in agriculture or country management and others work from home . The bus service runs every two hours and finishes at 7.00 pm . There is no service on Sunday so local residents rely heavily on their own transport . The primary school will struggle to accommodate a 15% increase in places . The sewerage system can't cope already with the population and the smell , at times , is unbearable . Rainfall creates a river down Main Street running from the higher ground . Mobile coverage is intermittent and broadband is not reliable . The entry to the estate is dangerous as it is close to a brow of a hill and struggles to conform to Highways Authority rules and reccomendations , and will require CPO's of neighbouring properties land .
My preferred sites are PS5 , PS6 and PS7s

Do not agree - We do not believe that PS24 (the preferred site) is suitable having previously been rejected for reasons that have not changed. In addition Peasmarsh Parish Council believes a single large site would be the most detrimental to the present character of the village and that three sites PS5 Land north east of Tanhouse or PS6 Land adjacent to Superstore - South East and PS7S - Land south of Oaklands, Main Street would be more suitable and could be combined to achieve the desired number of dwellings.

Do not agree. I do not believe that the preferred site for Peasmarsh (PS24) is suitable for development. It has previously been rejected and these reasons still remain. A single large site would be detrimental to the village character and to the quality of lie to the immediate neighbours. Three sites lends itself to the more desirable outcome to the village. PS5, PS6 and PS75.

Do not Agree. I do not believe that the preferred site for Peasmarsh (PS24) is suitable for development. It has previously been rejected and these reasons still remain. A single large site would be detrimental to the village character and to the quality of life to the immediate neighbours.

Three sites lend themselves to a more desirable outcome to the village. PS5, PS6 and PS75.

Do not Agree. I do not believe that the preferred site for Peasmarsh (PS24) is suitable for development. It has previously been rejected and these reasons still remain. A single large site would be detrimental to the village character and to the quality of life to the immediate neighbours.

Three sites lend themselves to a more desirable outcome to the village. PS5, PS6 and PS75.

Do not Agree. I do not believe that the preferred site for Peasmarsh (PS24) is suitable for development. It has previously been rejected and these reasons still remain. A single large site would be detrimental to the village character and to the quality of life to the immediate neighbours.

Three sites lend themselves to a more desirable outcome to the village. PS5, PS6 and PS75.

I wish to make the following points:

Flood risk is already a serious problem in many areas of Peasmarsh now.

Several areas of Peasmarsh do have a serious problem with water drainage and sewerage which is continually on-going. There is continual running water on to the main roads from many of the previous new builds recently, which has caused several road accidents in all months of the year and especially the Winter.

To the east of this proposed development is Griffin Lane where the local
properties have many problems with continual running water and drainage
problems now.

I cannot see that enough measures could ever be put in place to deal with the
increased surface water, sewerage and drainage , as despite the continual Parish Council representations nothing has ever been done by Rother to rectify this serious matter.

The telephone and internet is very poor in Peasmarsh and so many of us are still having problems with these, which both our Parish Council and local MP have tried to help us with. Despite B T and Open-Reach continually being in the village, nothing is any better-the internet is still continually dropping out.

Access to the main road for this huge development is going to be very dangerous as it is at the top of a steep hill, on which people drive much too fast. This will lead to many serious accidents as I am a Speed Watch Volunteer and know how many people speed in this area which also includes the Village Hall entrance area. This would be very worrying.

Referring to the comment "Given the shortfall against open space standards,
provision of an area of open space and children's play area is required'.

There is already a play area, recreation field and pavilion, bowling green and skateboard area adjoining the Maltings which is very large. I am sure that space cannot be found for these in this development, with so many houses being built.

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.

Question 81 Alternative Sites
Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planners to make "fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside".

In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments below in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above.

In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse
consequences attaching to PEA 1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope

Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planners to make "fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside".

In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments below in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above.

In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse
consequences attaching to PEA 1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope

Alternative Site 1 is shown on planning map as PS5 and PS6 this would avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1. The vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirements of easy and safe access on to the A268. Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses.

Alternative site 2 is shown on planning map as PS3 Tanyard Field. Access could be made into bottom of Church Lane. Tanyard Field has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope. Further development in Peasmarsh would be unwise and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this will imply.

The local primary school is below 100% improving performance and the proposed development would overwhelm this.

The public transport in Peasmarsh is not an acceptable level of service. National Planning Guidelines state planners should make fullest possible use of public transport. The householders of the new development may need to reply on good public transport.

Peasmarsh does not offer satisfactory public transport or employment opportunities.

In addition to further development some parts of the village struggle with the gas supply as it is barely above the minimum allowable pressure.

The electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage. The Telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broadband speeds in some areas are disappointing.

Alternative Site 1 is shown on planning map as PS5 and PS6 this would avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1. The vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirements of easy and safe access on to the A268. Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses.

Alternative site 2 is shown on planning map as PS3 Tanyard Field. Access could be made into bottom of Church Lane. Tanyard Field has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope. Further development in Peasmarsh would be unwise and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this will imply.

The local primary school is below 100% improving performance and the proposed development would overwhelm this.

The public transport in Peasmarsh is not an acceptable level of service. National Planning Guidelines state planners should make fullest possible use of public transport. The householders of the new development may need to reply on good public transport.

Peasmarsh does not offer satisfactory public transport or employment opportunities.

In addition to further development some parts of the village struggle with the gas supply as it is barely above the minimum allowable pressure.

The electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage. The Telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broadband speeds in some areas are disappointing.

Alternative Site 1 is shown on planning map as PS5 and PS6 this would avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1. The vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirements of easy and safe access on to the A268. Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses.

Alternative site 2 is shown on planning map as PS3 Tanyard Field. Access could be made into bottom of Church Lane. Tanyard Field has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope. Further development in Peasmarsh would be unwise and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this will imply.

The local primary school is below 100% improving performance and the proposed development would overwhelm this.

The public transport in Peasmarsh is not an acceptable level of service. National Planning Guidelines state planners should make fullest possible use of public transport. The householders of the new development may need to reply on good public transport.

Peasmarsh does not offer satisfactory public transport or employment opportunities.

In addition to further development some parts of the village struggle with the gas supply as it is barely above the minimum allowable pressure.

The electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage. The Telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broadband speeds in some areas are disappointing.

Alternative Sites

Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make "fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside".

In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above.

In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA 1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA 1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope.

It is questionable whether any major development is viable in this immediate area, because of the lack of a usable public transport service making the employment opportunities very small in number, particularly for those not having their own transport.

However if there must be more housing in Peasmarsh there are a number of problems with the chosen site. Firstly the site is outside the 'envelope' agreed by Rother and East Sussex in the Village plan which was exhaustively researched and agreed in I think 2006 ie about 10 years ago. This is flying in the face of governments avowed policy of 'Localism'.

The proposal to 'hard surface' a considerable area above land that has been known
historically to have surface water problems does seem perverse and attempting to ameliorate the effects would require very extensive groundworks.

Another major consideration is the affect that 40+ houses would have on the traffic through the village. The vehicles would be coming into the A268 just below the brow of a hill and close to a bend making sightlines very poor.

Yet another problem is the foul water drainage this has been a continual problem in the village and it was agreed at parish level that no more development should take place until the sewers were upgraded to cope with pumping the effluent up to the Iden sewage works.

Also if the plan goes ahead the disturbance for the immediate neighbours will be extensive and very long lasting, I have personal experience of this from living next door to the Farleys Way estate whilst it was being built. It does seem a little unfair to have two large estates built one abutting my front garden and the other my back garden.

1. Re 15.79 'Flood risk and biodiversity impacts are negligible. This completely ignores the indisputable fact that areas of Peasmarsh do have a serious problem with water drainage and sewerage. To the east of this development is Griffin Lane where the properties have had many problems with water and drainage. I am not convinced that enough measure would be put in place to deal with the increased surface water, sewerage and drainage. May I remind the appropriate authorities that a water problem was raised before 4 new houses were built in the east of the Village ( on part of the land called the Park and ANOB) and water is currently flooding across the main A268 road making it especially
lethal when it freezes. Despite the Parish Council representations nothing has been done by Rother to rectify this serious matter. So I have little expectation that should the same problem arise that Rather will do anything.

2. Communication i.e. telephone and internet is particularly poor in Peasmarsh and so many people have had problems that this has again been taken up by our Parish Council and M.P. Openreach appears to have a permanent presence in our Village.

3. Access to the main road appears to be inadequate for such a huge development and coming as it does near a top of a steep hill I can predict the likelihood of many accidents as this juncture is also so near the Village Hall. The very fact that the entry and exit point is the same proves my point.

4. I note the comment ' Given the shortfall against open space standards, provision of an area of open space and children' play area is required' The play area, recreation field and pavilion, bowling green and skateboard area adjoining the Maltings can hardly be called a small open space.

I object to the proposal to develop the site suggested in Peasmarsh.

My main objection is to the pedestrian pathway suggested which would be a significant dangerous element to the proposed plan. The pathway which runs right past my front door currently allows me access to my garage and other residents to park their cars also. This narrow farm track is hazardous as it is. I already struggle when exiting onto this bend on the A268. Pedestrians walking to and fro here would make this more dangerous.

I fear that I would suffer a whole new noise level not to mention a litter problem. Visibility for both pedestrians and cars on this stretch of the A268 is hampered by the curve of the road as well as the crest of Cock Hill.

Apart from why are Rather 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.

Do not agree - We do not believe that PS24 (the preferred site) is suitable and that two sites PS5 Land north east of Tanhouse or PS6 Land adjacent to Superstore - South East would be more suitable as either a combination of sites (to achieve the desired number of dwellings) or as a single site.

Ref DaSA Part C
Dear Sir

I am writing to you regarding the above proposed plan as it applies to Peasmarsh.

After consulting with various local people and after attending yesterday's Parish Council meeting it is apparent there is widespread objection to the proposal and indeed real alarm at the apparent paucity of research made by Council before issuing the proposals.

Whilst attached you will find an amalgam of various issues discussed and our reasons behind them I would draw your particular attention to two particular problems.

Several of my neighbours in so called Griffin Lane have endurde many problems with flooding at times of heavy/moderate rainfall when our gardens are turned into lakes as current drainage from the proposed site, cannot cope properly. Indeed in the 24 years I have lived at this address I have spent considerable sums trying to rectify this, to no avail. Your proposals for building on this land can only exacerbate this problem hugely, unless a major upgrade of surface water drainage and sewage is conducted well in advance of any building. Failure to do so would be a wilful example of you ignoring this fundamental problem.

The second major issue is the traffic access for the proposed site directly onto the A268 as suggested. Frankly, I am amazed that the proposed entry/exit point is regarded a safe and viable without major changes i.e. traffic calming, roundabouts etc.

As ever, the devil is in the detail but it is clear major expenditure is needed to overcome the problems referred to above. In an effort to be positive regarding development regarding question 81 for alternative sites you will see these are suggested which would have less onerous cost requirements for the council and would remove the danger of direct access onto the A268 main road.

The attached document will give you a more comprehensive view of our discontent with the proposal and I strongly disagree with the plan as it stands

Yours faithfully

Roger Evans.

Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) see 11.13 which requires planners to make "fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside".

In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments below in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment Mid educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above.

In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA 1.

(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to A268.

(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses.

(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site.

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3

Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope

Dear Sir,

I doubt the wisdom of development on the site suggested by your planners.

My main objection is that we already suffer flooding in times of heavy rain (photo of our front garden enclosed.) The flow of water from the proposed site drains down from the site and as you can see from the enclosed photograph, does not enter the road drains on main street but pools in our garden which seems to be at the low point of the 5 properties on the small un-named lane between the proposed estate and the Farleys Way estate. Any further hard surface must inevitably make the problem worse. I suggest that extensive remedial ground works are essential to improve the drainage of the proposed site.

I also think that before the population of the village of Peasmarsh is increased by a considerable amount, the lack of employment and dire public transport should preclude further large scale development. The only amenity in Peasmarsh is the very good shop.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28014

Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.

(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.

(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane.
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope

Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) see 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1

(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.

(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.

(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses

(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2

Shown on the Planning Map as PS3

Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.

(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane

(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope

I would like to add the following points in regards to the Proposed development in Peasmarsh:

Peasmarsh is a small Village that has been over developed already over the last 20 years, Farleys way, Hop gardens and the continuing development of Maltins.. Our services in the village are non existent, Public transport is now almost non existent with public transport having being cut back year on year.

I feel Rother Council target Peasmarsh because of the supermarket Jempsons as being an amenity, a supermarket which most of the village does not use mainly because of there prices which are considerably higher than a leading supermarket, with most of the village using on line delivery for there shopping due to poor transport links to local towns and shops.

Rye Medical Centre which looks after Peasmarsh again is at breaking point and would struggle to cope with another possible 200 people after a development of this type, It takes sometimes two weeks to be able to see a doctor at the moment.

Employment in the village is bare minimum most residents either are unemployed or travel by car to other areas to work, there is very little Employment prospects in the village or local area.

The preferred site ps24 Impacts largely on the landscape and properties on and around the proposed development, The PS3 site as mentioned about has already only recently had development placed on it making it closer to the real centre of the village and playing fields already located in the Maltins.

As mentioned already any development in Peasmarsh will very much strain the village, before any large developments are planned for the village it need massive investment to public transport water, gas, drainage, telephone and the road systems.

I trust these comments and the complete form above will be taken into consideration and that I am highly objecting to the development proposal

Question 25
I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.


Question 81
Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.
If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.
However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope


Question 82
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 A268, 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 critereon 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 Peasmarsh 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 on going 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.


Question 83
I regret that we me not able to agree, in their totality, to major changes to the development
boundary. The reasons may be implied from our comments on PEA1 and question 82.


I would also like to add that historically a development of this type on this land was rejected in 1972 causing the development company Galleon Estates to go bankrupt and into liquidation. Although I do not have any record of why the planning permission was rejected at that time, I do not believe that there as been any improvement in the facilities of the village since then that would change that original decision. I fact over the thirty one years that I have lived here things have deteriorated.
We are now down to one shop in the village that doesn't open on Sundays. Public transport only exists with financial support from the Parish Council. In village employment in the form of a garage and repair workshop, and the wood yard have already gone for the benefit of housing development.

Houses that are built and others on the market in the village, take a long time to be sold and occupied and are often soon back up for sale which makes me wonder who these new houses are being made available for, certainly not the existing purchasers or those in the village.

I am also struggling to understand how this proposed development aims to, and I quote "improve pedestrian linkage connecting to the school and Main Street", if there is not going to be another pathway to School Lane. If there was, and it was via the southern aspect of the preferred site it wouldn't be an improvement any way because it would be uphill and parents with children will still use Main Street and the path opposite the Maltings or drive causing more chaos at the school.
School lane is manic with vehicles at school time as it is.

Access to the proposed site via "Pippins" will mean that 10 or more metres of highway will have a `priority solution`. Being that all the ground services will also have to pass under this section of road the risk of this narrow access being blocked by road works or other obstructions is relatively high. This would mean that the new development would be totally isolated and emergency vehicles, let alone residents would not be able to access the estate.

On a more personal note my houses was built by Galleon Estates and I have in the Conveyance for the property dated 25th August 1972 in the first schedule the full and free right of way along what I believe is the track that goes up between The Clock House( which used to be the old Post Office and shop) and Laurel Hall(which used to be the old Sunday School) to enable possible access to the rear of my land. I would be interested to know how this will be maintained should this proposed development go ahead. I believe that all four houses that were built by Galleon Estates have this same right.

I have worked for over fifty years to have a property that I can enjoy in my retirement. Looking out onto from my land and being partly surrounded by a housing estate is not a vision I had in my retirement plans.

Objection to proposed site allocation PS24 in Peasamrsh

Apart from why are Rother proposing an extra 50 houses in Peasmarsh when the infustructure 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 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 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.

Please read this eamil in conjunction with attached document.


Site Allocations questions
Question 81 - Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Peasmarsh? If not, which site should be preferred?
Do not agree - We do not believe that PS24 (the preferred site) is suitable and that three sites PS5 Land north east of Tanhouse or PS6 Land adjacent to Superstore and PS7s Land south of Oaklands Main Street would be more suitable as either a combination of sites (to achieve the desired number of dwellings) or as a single site
Question 82 - Do you agree with the requirements of Policy PEA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
I) 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 more affordable housing for those people unable to currently purchase the high priced local housing in Peasmarsh . The stated figure of 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.
III) 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
Question 83 - Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
15.83. It is proposed to amend the development boundary as set out on Figure 109 below.
15.84. The proposed amendment to the development boundary will reflect the new allocation in the village
Do not agree - We believe that the three sites as specified in the response to question 81 above should be the proposed development boundary and that figure 109 should be amended accordingly to reflect these sites
Preferred site PS24 - Reasons for objection
a) Access to the A268 via Pippins is extremely problematic in terms of driver sight line when exiting the proposed site due to the proximity of the hill to the west between Tanhouse Lane and The Cock Inn as this stretch of the A268 is in a 40mph limit (which is often being exceeded by motorists) and approaching vehicles cannot be seen until they are passing The Cock Inn. To the east side there is a blind bend from The Old Post Office to approximately Crookwell and although this is a 30mph limit motorist quite often exceed it - as can be confirmed by the local Speedwatch group.
b) Entry to the site is by the Highways Authority own admission only achievable in principle and requires presumably the demolition of a perfectly habitable property 'Pippins' to achieve access to the site and even then a priority system will be required at the rear end
c) It is unclear from the proposal as to whether or not there is provision for footpath(s) on this entry / exit road
d) The creation of this access will undoubtedly have a severe impact on the occupiers of the properties that will be either side of this road who will have to endure the comings and goings of vehicles and the like to the 45 dwellings day and night.
e) As this proposal relies very much on the owners of Pippins being prepared to sell their property to any potential developer, which presumably they have said they will, what provision has been made should they change their mind or cannot agree a sale price with the developer?
f) The two options to connect the footpath to the south and west are not specified other that they require third party land so it is not possible to judge what the implications of this may be
g) Though to a lesser extent properties abounding the proposed site will also be greatly impacted by this proposed development
h) Whilst the provision of a residential children's play area is to be applauded there already exists adequate facilities at The Maltings which incorporates a children's play park, a recreation ground and a skate park and the hope would be that the residents of the new site would wish to avail themselves of these facilities and thus integrate themselves into the wider community
i) Preferred site is badly drained. Drainage problems cause the garden of the lowest level property in this vicinity to flood on a regular basis and this will only be exacerbated by this development.


Preferred sites - Reasons for choosing

The Parish Council has in its possession an email from Richard Wilson at RDC, dated 2014, in which he states "that the only feasible sites for development in Peasmarsh are near to Jempsons Supermarket".

PS5
Whilst accepting that the site would have a negative impact on ANOB it would again appear that this site is being rejected simply because of the view but that in all other aspects would seem more preferable to PS24 as it meets much of the criteria and impacts on very few existing properties.
Safer access to the A268 from the already established access road to Jempsons Supermarket.
Access could be easily obtained from the existing roundabout adjacent to Jempsons giving easy access to site.
Much closer to amenities ie Supermarket, Post Office, Pharmacy etc.
PS6
As stated in PS5 this too appears to be a site rejected purely on the grounds above despite being very accessible and fulfilling much of the criteria used to justify PS24 and again this impacts very few properties.
Links onto PS5 with the same benefits of access.
PS7s
Links onto PS6 with the same benefits of access as PS5.
Could be developed at a later stage as opposed to one large development.
Less impact on existing properties.

General observations on Peasmarsh infrastructure
a) Drainage - over the years there have been a number of issues regarding the drainage and in particular the foul water with the Iden treatment works running near to its maximum capacity.
b) With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the addition of another 45 dwellings this will increase the population of the village by around 120 (2.3 people per household 2011 census) an approximate 10% increase yet there is no provision in the document for any of the following
1) Doctors surgery residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre of The Northiam Surgery both of which will be under increased pressure by developments within the surrounding villages and may have to start limiting their patients to those within their catchment area
2) Dentist - again there is no provision for this
3) Bus service - This has effectively been cut from an hourly service to a two hourly service and looks set to be reduce even further due to budgetary constraints at ESCC
4) The local primary school is nearing capacity and will almost certainly struggle to accommodate an influx of children particularly as it becomes more successful and is obliged to take children whose parents do not live in the village thus forcing village children to be located further afield.

We acknowledge that there is a need for more affordable housing and this is not a case of 'NIMBY' ism but simply that the proposed site, PS24, is ill conceived and fraught with potential problems. However, notwithstanding the points made regarding infrastructure we would urge you to reconsider the proposed site and give careful consideration to the alternative sites we have suggested.

Objection to proposed site allocation PS24 in Peasamrsh

Apart from why are Rother proposing an extra 50 houses in Peasmarsh when the infustructure 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 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 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.

Please read this eamil in conjunction with attached document.


Site Allocations questions
Question 81 - Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Peasmarsh? If not, which site should be preferred?
Do not agree - We do not believe that PS24 (the preferred site) is suitable and that three sites PS5 Land north east of Tanhouse or PS6 Land adjacent to Superstore and PS7s Land south of Oaklands Main Street would be more suitable as either a combination of sites (to achieve the desired number of dwellings) or as a single site
Question 82 - Do you agree with the requirements of Policy PEA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
I) 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 more affordable housing for those people unable to currently purchase the high priced local housing in Peasmarsh . The stated figure of 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.
III) 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
Question 83 - Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
15.83. It is proposed to amend the development boundary as set out on Figure 109 below.
15.84. The proposed amendment to the development boundary will reflect the new allocation in the village
Do not agree - We believe that the three sites as specified in the response to question 81 above should be the proposed development boundary and that figure 109 should be amended accordingly to reflect these sites
Preferred site PS24 - Reasons for objection
a) Access to the A268 via Pippins is extremely problematic in terms of driver sight line when exiting the proposed site due to the proximity of the hill to the west between Tanhouse Lane and The Cock Inn as this stretch of the A268 is in a 40mph limit (which is often being exceeded by motorists) and approaching vehicles cannot be seen until they are passing The Cock Inn. To the east side there is a blind bend from The Old Post Office to approximately Crookwell and although this is a 30mph limit motorist quite often exceed it - as can be confirmed by the local Speedwatch group.
b) Entry to the site is by the Highways Authority own admission only achievable in principle and requires presumably the demolition of a perfectly habitable property 'Pippins' to achieve access to the site and even then a priority system will be required at the rear end
c) It is unclear from the proposal as to whether or not there is provision for footpath(s) on this entry / exit road
d) The creation of this access will undoubtedly have a severe impact on the occupiers of the properties that will be either side of this road who will have to endure the comings and goings of vehicles and the like to the 45 dwellings day and night.
e) As this proposal relies very much on the owners of Pippins being prepared to sell their property to any potential developer, which presumably they have said they will, what provision has been made should they change their mind or cannot agree a sale price with the developer?
f) The two options to connect the footpath to the south and west are not specified other that they require third party land so it is not possible to judge what the implications of this may be
g) Though to a lesser extent properties abounding the proposed site will also be greatly impacted by this proposed development
h) Whilst the provision of a residential children's play area is to be applauded there already exists adequate facilities at The Maltings which incorporates a children's play park, a recreation ground and a skate park and the hope would be that the residents of the new site would wish to avail themselves of these facilities and thus integrate themselves into the wider community
i) Preferred site is badly drained. Drainage problems cause the garden of the lowest level property in this vicinity to flood on a regular basis and this will only be exacerbated by this development.


Preferred sites - Reasons for choosing

The Parish Council has in its possession an email from Richard Wilson at RDC, dated 2014, in which he states "that the only feasible sites for development in Peasmarsh are near to Jempsons Supermarket".

PS5
Whilst accepting that the site would have a negative impact on ANOB it would again appear that this site is being rejected simply because of the view but that in all other aspects would seem more preferable to PS24 as it meets much of the criteria and impacts on very few existing properties.
Safer access to the A268 from the already established access road to Jempsons Supermarket.
Access could be easily obtained from the existing roundabout adjacent to Jempsons giving easy access to site.
Much closer to amenities ie Supermarket, Post Office, Pharmacy etc.
PS6
As stated in PS5 this too appears to be a site rejected purely on the grounds above despite being very accessible and fulfilling much of the criteria used to justify PS24 and again this impacts very few properties.
Links onto PS5 with the same benefits of access.
PS7s
Links onto PS6 with the same benefits of access as PS5.
Could be developed at a later stage as opposed to one large development.
Less impact on existing properties.

General observations on Peasmarsh infrastructure
a) Drainage - over the years there have been a number of issues regarding the drainage and in particular the foul water with the Iden treatment works running near to its maximum capacity.
b) With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the addition of another 45 dwellings this will increase the population of the village by around 120 (2.3 people per household 2011 census) an approximate 10% increase yet there is no provision in the document for any of the following
1) Doctors surgery residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre of The Northiam Surgery both of which will be under increased pressure by developments within the surrounding villages and may have to start limiting their patients to those within their catchment area
2) Dentist - again there is no provision for this
3) Bus service - This has effectively been cut from an hourly service to a two hourly service and looks set to be reduce even further due to budgetary constraints at ESCC
4) The local primary school is nearing capacity and will almost certainly struggle to accommodate an influx of children particularly as it becomes more successful and is obliged to take children whose parents do not live in the village thus forcing village children to be located further afield.

We acknowledge that there is a need for more affordable housing and this is not a case of 'NIMBY' ism but simply that the proposed site, PS24, is ill conceived and fraught with potential problems. However, notwithstanding the points made regarding infrastructure we would urge you to reconsider the proposed site and give careful consideration to the alternative sites we have suggested.

Question 81

Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site.

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope