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

I wish to make comments about the land south of Main Street covered in your policy PEA1 site PS24. My main concerns is the unsuitable vehicle access from and on to Main Street. This is rather narrow and is on a piece of road that has a slight bend that will restrict visibility. I note the development is for 45 dwellings and this has a potential of 60 to 70 cars plus all the service vehicles trying to exit onto the main road. We live adjacent to the site and have suffered three cars written off by vehicles running into them during our residency in Peasmarsh.

You state that Peasmarsh has a good range of services. We are lucky to have a very good supermarket but a bus service only once in two hours and a primary school that is virtually at full capacity now, no doctor's surgery and no street lighting. The development will have a lasting impact on the surrounding area, this will I feel be detrimental and other sites need to be considered instead such as one or two smaller ones.

General observations on constraints within Peasmarsh infrastructure

With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the proposal to add 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. It is hard to see how the village will be able to absorb this increase without the issues detailed below being addressed - which sadly this document fails to acknowledge or address.

a. Drainage - Concerns that a number of issues regarding the drainage and in particular the foul water have been reported over a number of years and the Parish Council have regularly been told this is due to the Iden treatment works running near to its maximum capacity.

b. Doctors surgery - Residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre or 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.

c. Dentist - A lack of local access to NHS provision.

d. Bus service - Reduced to a two hourly service in April 2016, day time only and more limited on Saturdays, with the prospect that this will be reduce even further due to budgetary constraints at ESCC.

e. The village primary school, already extended to meet local need, is nearing capacity and will almost certainly struggle to accommodate additional children with little space to extend further.

f. Utilities - Gas pressure and broadband are already experiencing difficulties and are regularly failing the community whilst upgrading is not a priority to the companies involved.

g. Employment opportunities are very limited and what few there are tend to be mostly in the service and tourist sector, which are generally minimum wage or at best low paid, making even so called affordable housing no more than a dream.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28053

Question 24

I agree with the policy approach to a comprehensive development but reserve judgement on the proposed policy wording. It should be noted that the correct and sensible approach does not of itself insure a sensible outcome. For the reasons stated in answers to your questions 82 and 83 some very unwise and ill thought out proposals have resulted. Perhaps the Planners have become carried away by enthusiasm in making recommendations in regards to Peasmarsh and, for example, the inclusion of a derelict orchard (decaying trees) within or attaching to a children's' play area creating a wholly unnecessary hazard.

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 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 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
We 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 write to express my disagreement with the outline proposal for a large development of housing in the centre of Peasmarsh.

My main reason is that of safety on the A268 for drivers and pedestrians given the proposed access point at "Pippins" for the development.

Close inspection is needed by Rother District Council - a site visit - to understand the complications and dangers at this part of the busy A268.

* Brow of Cock Hill in very close proximity which leads to visibility issues at this point in the Rye direction and Beckley direction.
* Presence of vital BT works opposite "Pippins" that daily has vehicles needing parking there.
* The curve of the road opposite the Memorial Hall means vision is impaired even now.
* The rise of the road, and fall of it gradually towards Rye, also hinders sight.
* Approaching the village from Beckley towards Rye in the morning at rush hour is also tricky at the point when arriving on the crest of Cock Hill. The sun is low and right in the driver's face. Even with traffic calming measures this just is a complex stretch of the road.
* The Cock Inn is very close to the proposed site. This business increases traffic - not only its deliveries and guests but , more importantly, the cars of the owners/guests in their 25+ caravans/mobile homes and touring holiday makers on top of that.
* The narrow entrance/exit to the development is an issue, especially bearing in mind that many homes have two (at least sometimes) cars. I can see that if a driver was trying to exit the development onto the A268, and waiting for a chance to do so safely, there could be other residents waiting behind impatiently causing the driver to hastily "go for it" when the road wasn't truly clear.
* Even if a footpath extension was created, for access to the primary school, most families drive their children to school. It's wrong in many ways, but both parents are usually in a hurry.
* If Cock Hill could be moved, the curve straightened out, I would think differently about these issues.
* Drainage. A thorough review must be made of drainage (surface and sewage). As is already recognised, there are already issues with drains here that are pushed to the limit already. This is a problem that would/does need large investment.
In conclusion, there are just too many spurs off the A268 here in the village (Griffin Lane and Malthouse, Farleys Way, Forstal Lane etc). Drivers also exit out of the Laurel Hall driveway onto the bend which has very poor visibility. More houses will mean many more cars struggling unnecessarily to get on/off the A268.

A development site should be sought with safer vehicular access. Site P53 on the Planning Map (Tanyard field) should be considered due to the width of A268 at bottom of Church Lane (and excellent visibility) where residents could access from a new driveway there.

New houses are needed. I hope that enough thought goes into where they are placed.

Above all, safety has to come first.

I am a resident of Peasmarsh and have been for seven years.

During that time, living at 1 White Knights, Main Street, close to the preferred site, I have become aware of some of the issues of living in this area.

There are some concerns, which I will now share, concerning this preferred site, having read the plans carefully and having studied the maps closely in the documentation provided online.

Whilst I fully understand the demands being made by the government, and do not want to be a NIMBY, knowing that building has to happen somewhere, I seek reassurance that due consideration and expert input has been given to the following points.

Is the infrastructure surrounding this preferred site capable of sustaining this quantity of new homes and extra residents?

1. There are serious drainage issues when a very wet winter occurs as it did back in 2015/16. In this age of more extreme weather, such a time will happen again. Have adequate provisions been factored in to accommodate this?

2. This is an area prone to power cuts. Can the existing supply network cope with further demands? Or will the existing network be improved/upgraded to cope?

3. Will the local sewerage system be able to cope with increased use? The current system appears to be struggling and is constantly needing attention as it is.

4. Local schools appear to be struggling to meet the current demand for places as well as experiencing staff recruitment problems. With the continued budget constraints, will they be able to provide the high standard of education required by both current and prospective new pupils?

Thank you for your kind attention to the above concerns. I trust that they will be taken seriously and that our local authority will do its upmost for the benefit of residents old and new in this delightful village.

Landscape

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS

Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.

Archaeology

Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219

Peasmarsh

The site will require archaeological assessment, prior to being allocated, to clarify risk
AMBER

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.

I agree with the policy approach to a comprehensive development but reserve judgement on the proposed policy wording. It should be noted that the correct and sensible approach does not of itself ensure a sensible outcome. For the reasons stated in answers to your questions 82 and 83 some very unwise and ill thought out proposals have resulted.

Perhaps the Planners have become carried away by enthusiasm in making recommendations m regards to Peasmarsh and, for example, the inclusion of a derelict orchard (decaying trees) within or attaching to a childrens' play area creating a wholly unnecessary hazard.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

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

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) 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 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 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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.