Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh

Legal Compliance and Soundness. The Statement of Community involvement makes clear that consultation must be open and robust. At item 5 2.2 "Consultation will seek to involve all parties who .... are affected by the outcome". This has not happened in my case. I heard about the plans by chance presumably because my farmhouse is based in the Parish of Iden. However, because my farm is accessed from the A268 opposite the entrance to the development I am directly affected. Nobody has consulted me about this which is surprising given the movement of heavy farm traffic opposite the proposed development entrance. This in fact involves traffic from two farms who share the same driveway/junction. The junction is dangerous enough as things stand with a blind rise masking vehicles travelling at speed from the North. The situation is compounded by low winter sun affecting sight lines towards the south.There have already been a number of near accidents at this spot and the PEA1 proposal heightens this risk, with implications for RDC liability in the event of a bad accident. The access proposals fail the "soundness" test because they are not justified. There are much less risky alternatives - see below.

LAND REAR OF OAKLANDS, PEASMARSH
PROPOSED SUBMISSION DASA LOCAL PLAN
Thank you for the invitation to comment on the above consultation. I write on behalf of our client Maggie Hurst who holds a controlling interest in land known as Oaklands, Main Street, Peasmarsh, TN31 6YD. The site comprises the property known as Oaklands, which has a frontage onto Main Street, Peasmarsh and three paddocks which extend to the south. It sits in a ribbon of residential development which runs along the southern side of Main Street and has a curtilage of approximately 0.2 hectares extending south of the property and to the rear of the two dwellings to the east.

The land has been assessed as part of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, under the site ID's PS7N and PS7S respectively. After consideration the council concluded that these were 'not preferred sites'. Site PS7S was described as having 'a lack of integration with the existing village'. In the interim, an allocation has been proposed for 45 dwellings on the neighbouring 'Land South of Main Street' under policy PEA1. This proposed allocation is somewhat surprising because it would appear that this land is in fact poorly integrated and located further from village amenities than the land at both PS7N and PS7S. Our clients land is located closer to the village, other residential properties and associated amenities including the Jempsons superstore, suggesting its position would allow for more favourable development. The reference to 'a lack of integration' is therefore clearly not now appropriate.

The allocated land at PEA1 faces substantial access constraints; at present the site does not have any means of access to Main Street. Access is proposed to be made available through the demolition of a dwelling at 'Pippins', but this arrangement would not seem to allow for suitable visibility splays. Despite these obvious access constraints, the land has still been brought forward for allocation. In the case of PS7S and PS7N access restrictions have been used as a justification to refuse allocation, although no formal work has apparently been undertaken on which these concerns are based. It is pertinent to note that the access concerns expressed by the council are in fact no more substantial than those faced at PEA1. The ability to overcome access concerns at this site must be given fair consideration and further study must be explored before discounting the sites development potential.
The proposed allocation for the land at PEA1 notes that development would be limited to the northern and central parts of the site as these areas are screened from the existing countryside, with the southern portion most suited for use as public space. The land at PS7N however does not face these restrictions, as noted by the council the land is 'visually contained from the wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty', development at this site would therefore not need to be limited. Further, the land at PS7S presents and excellent opportunity to integrate residential developments and green space to address the shortfall in the village. An allocation of the land at PS7S and PS7N should therefore be obvious. The allocation could be for the sites individually, or in conjunction with one another. At present the absence of these allocations leads us to believe that the plan is not justified, the plan is clearly not putting forth an appropriate strategy and taking into account reasonable alternatives and as such the plan cannot be considered to be robust or reliable.
This representation demonstrates that the council must reconsider the land at PS7N and PS7S for allocation. The land at Oaklands, Peasmarsh represents an excellent opportunity, and we consider that the site allocation be modified accordingly. It is clear that an opportunity does exist here.

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

Further to my call earlier this afternoon, I am looking to submit an objection to the 'Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan' on behalf of my client and other residents, before the deadline of 16:30 today.

The objection relates specifically to Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

I have already submitted this objection on the online system, however I note that it is not possible to upload photographs etc. and therefore it perhaps makes sense to provide you with the representations in full with annexures already attached.

Representations in respect of Allocation PEA1:

These objections, which are submitted on behalf of a number of local residents of Peasmarsh object to the proposed allocation of land to the south of Main Street for residential development on three different sets of grounds. A map of the site in provided at Appendix 1.

First of all, they question the need to identify a site for so many houses within Peasmarsh in view of the changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy in September 2014.

Secondly, they oppose the specific allocation of the land to the south of Main Street for a number of site specific reasons.

Thirdly, they offer a number of alternative and preferred sites for development.

Changes in Circumstances

Since the adoption of the Local Plan there have been a number of significant changes in relation to the public transport accessibility of Peasmarsh. This affects the ability to access employment and services by means other than a private car and affects the sustainability of Peasmarsh as a location for major development. As a result of cuts to bus services imposed by East Sussex County Council in 2015/16 the local bus service was reduced by more than 50%. Full details of the accessibility of Peasmarsh and the changes which have occurred since 2014 are set out in Appendix 2.

Since the adoption of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy there have also been a number of significant changes in relation to access to medical facilities by residents of Peasmarsh. There are only two doctor's surgeries in the area. One is within Rye, some 4.1 miles away, and the other is in Northian, some 4.3 miles away, which has recently given notice that it no longer intends to take any additional patients on from the Peasmarsh area.

Furthermore, since the adoption of the Local Plan Peasmarsh Primary School has only become more strained in coping with the greater numbers of children they are expected to support. Teaching staff have been laid off in this time and the number of teaching staff has been reduced whilst the number of pupils has grown.

In the light of these changes to the accessibility and servicing of Peasmarsh the Rother District Council (the "Council") should be taking a critical look at how many additional dwellings can be constructed in Peasmarsh. The Local Plan allocation of 'up to 50' needs to be viewed in this light and the figure should be reduced accordingly.

Site Specific Issues

There are two overriding site specific objections in relation to the land to the south of Main Street which is contained within policy allocation PEA1, namely access and drainage.

Access

The problems with access are varied and constitute the biggest hurdle to making development of PEA1 appropriate.

Firstly, any scheme will require the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a property, known as 'Pippins', see Appendix 3. This property forms part of the period streetscape and it is a waste to demolish this dwelling with the aim of creating other dwellings in its place. Other sites within Peasmarsh would not require either the compulsory acquisition or demolition of existing properties.

Secondly, Paragraph 11.178 of the DASA states that "a priority solution to traffic will be required on a narrow section of the access road, some 70 metres into the site". This is necessary even with the compulsory acquisition of Pippins. This is a clear recognition that the width of the access road is insufficient for traditional two-way traffic. As seen in Appendix 4, this vehicular access bisects two neighbouring properties, known 'Welbeck' to the west and the 'Wheelers' to the east. It should be noted that the land containing the mature conifers and the trees themselves belong to 'Welbeck' and do not lie on the development land. The line of conifers continues in a straight, unswerving line from Welbeck to the end of their garden. This garden runs further than that of the Pippins property. It stands to reason that this straight line of trees follows the perimeter of the Welbeck property and not the Pippins property. This can be seen on the land registry title plan with registration number ESX90737 at Appendix 5. This leaves a width of approximately 3.5 metres to accommodate an access road on the title with registration number ESX310226, and which is tightly enclosed by tall trees and hedges. Clearly this space is only appropriate at best for a single lane of traffic, and fails to provide sufficient room for any pedestrian access, which would have to be provided separately. A consequence of the single lane access is going to be traffic backing up on Main Street. This is an unsatisfactory solution and it is clearly inappropriate that an allocation for a major site like this should have to suffer such a constraint. An access solution for the allocation must be provided to ensure an adequate and safe means of access that meets modern standards or the allocation should not proceed.

Thirdly, we would note that the proposed vehicular access does not even entirely line up with the potential gap left by the demolition of the property known as Pippins, allowing access to the A268. As can be seen from the photograph at Appendix 6, the proposed vehicular access backs directly onto the garage of the property known as Wheelers. The access road would therefore have to dog-leg from the access point onto the A268.

Fourthly, we note that the property known as Pippins is entered opposite the entrance to the BT exchange, see Appendix 7. This is a junction used by large maintenance lorries which find the junction a difficult one to exit. Adding another junction as one enters Pippins will only exacerbate the situation.

As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to PEA1 by the same route would be impossible. Instead it is suggested that access to PEA1 on foot would be via the 'Green Lane', some 50 metres away from the vehicular access. This is not just impractical, it is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is (and will remain) a vehicular access.

The 'Green Lane' is currently accessed immediately off the A268 and is initially gravelled before turning into a muddy path. This partial gravelling is in order to give vehicular access to off street parking areas owned by the local residents who live at properties including those known as 'Farthings', 'Laurel Hall' and other surrounding properties, see Appendix 8. These rights of way have existed for up to 45 years. A recent conversion of a garage into a dwelling house on the 'Green Lane' on land registered with tile ESX310228 means that vehicle access is required for a significant distance up the 'Green Lane'. It is unclear how the 'Green Lane' could be expected to safely provide vehicular access to those residents that already use it, and meanwhile provide the only means of pedestrian access to a development at PEA1.

Linked to the problems with the physical access to the land at PEA1 is the junction to the A268. Even if the abovementioned access problems could be fixed, the junction onto the A268 is ultimately a dangerous one, in that it sits on the inside of a gentle curve. Residents agree that the road is becoming faster and busier and that they are having increasing difficulty negotiating exiting their driveways onto the A268. The addition of 45 dwellings at PEA1 will only exacerbate the chances of accidents at this junction.

Drainage

Drainage is a substantial problem at PEA1 and the Council are well aware of this. There has been substantial correspondence between the owners of Old Red Ford, Shortacre, Dove Cottage, The Beeches and The Oaks (all of which reside adjacent to the 'Green Lane', Peasmarsh, to the east of PEA1) and the Council. This correspondence concerns the severe flooding that the properties have suffered from since the problem started around 1995. See Appendix 9 for photographs from 2001 and 2014. On various occasions it was pointed out by residents to the Council that the increasing development of the area was exacerbating the problem of flooding and saturation of their properties.

In a report of 3 April 1999 to R.W. Evans of The Oaks, Main Street, landscape design and horticultural consultant Ronald C Burtenshaw commented that 'the amount of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth'. See Appendix 10.

Indeed, the Council has written to the owner of part of PEA1 on behalf of residents requesting that he unblock the drains on land within PEA1. The Council then acknowledged to residents that the owner's reluctant and unhelpful attitude was regrettable, but that the Council did not have the power to compel the owner to improve the drainage at the site. The Council now at least have the opportunity to stop the situation becoming any worse by not allowing further development of the site.

In addition, there are the following objections to the allocation of the site to the south of Main Street:

* The site lies within an area of poor broadband connection - the site should be identified with better access to such facilities.

* The proposal involves the loss of an attractive existing dwelling, which would not be necessary in any of the other sites.

* We note that there are no records of planning applications for new housing within the site itself, and a large number of refused applications for small-scale residential developments (1 - 3 dwellings) on land adjacent to the PEA1.

* In allocating the site the Council has given too much weight to the proposed re-instatement of an old orchard, which in any event has a limited lifespan. It is not considered possible for this to be a genuine public open space in view of the nature of the land and therefore benefits both to the local residents and the wider village of this area are limited.

* The proposal involves a fragmentation of play areas within the village whereas the local residents feel that it would be better to concentrate the play areas into a single play area where there can be added investment and improvement. The prospect of a play area in what is a secluded area seems an odd choice. We also note that there are ponds along the 'Green Lane' that would make the site unsuitable for such use.

* This is going to be an expensive site to develop with a number of abnormal expenses. Those expenses are going to affect the viability of the site and the ability to provide 40% affordable housing.

Better alternative sites that the local residents have proposed

There are several alternative sites that are more suitable for development shown on the plan at Appendix 1. These separately owned fields are labelled at PS5, PS6, PS7N and PS7S.

The proposed sites as shown at Appendix 1 were rejected by Officers of the Council when considering sites within Peasmarsh partly on the basis that they lay outside the existing village envelope and partly because of their archaeological potential. However both of these reasons can apply equally to the allocated PEA1 site.

The sites are closer to what is fast becoming the centre of the village and instead of providing a new play area the opportunity should be taken to reinforce the existing play area.

The alternative sites involve no loss of dwellings and although they include a number of important hedges, those could be accommodated within the development. The main reason why the alternative proposals were rejected was because of the alleged impact on the rural character of the area but that ignores the fact that the sites all lie adjacent to the nearby commercial facilities comprising the supermarket, petrol station, and 24 hour lighting as shown at Appendix 11, as well as caravan sites and commercial units located adjacent to Tanhouse Lane. It is considered that the development of one of the alternative sites would fully achieve the maintenance of the rural character of the area in a manner that would be much more successful than the proposed allocated site.

Whilst it is noted that the preferred alternative sites would require access over third party land that could be achieved either by agreement or by compulsory purchase. In any event it is likely that PEA1 would also require additional third party land required in order to provide it with a means of access which would be satisfactory.

Site PS5, as seen at Appendix 12, is particularly well suited in that it already has a direct, quiet road access running alongside the field via Tanhouse Lane. Residents note that the site has no problems with drainage thanks to the culverts installed as part of the supermarket development. This may be suitable for development in its own right or as an access to the other sites.

Site PS6, as seen at Appendix 13, is also more accessible then PEA1, and includes a large accessway to the A268 by way of the site labelled PS7N. The means of joining the A268 itself would be at a slightly elevated site adjacent to the public house, with very good visibility in both directions.

Appendices to follow by email.

Appendix 1 Plan of site: 1.http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31097

Appendix 2 Details relating to transport services

Transport Issues

The major employment destinations are Brighton, Hastings, Bexhill and Ashford.

The bus and train timetables to these destinations demonstrate the difficulties of accessing employment and other services without individual car usage. In one case there is a 57 minute wait; the earliest public transport arrival in Hastings is 8.52am. In another case the commuter is faced with a choice between a 3 minute connection time or a 32 minute wait.

Note there is no bus service from Rye to Ashford, except via Tenterden.

Since the development of the Rother Core Strategy in 2014 Peasmarsh has seen a number of changes in local public transport that are to the detriment of the village.

Reduction in subsidy to the bus services by East Sussex County Council in 2015-16 saw the local bus Service more than halved to a 2 hourly bus service to Rye between 9.15am and 4.30pm on weekdays, with a less frequent service on Saturdays and no Sunday service. The last bus back to the village is at 7.15pm. The service now terminates in Rye instead of the previous through service to Hastings.

These changes mean it is almost impossible for someone to now use public transport as a means to get to work.

In 2017 Rambler Coaches withdrew from the bus franchise and it was, reluctantly, taken on by Stagecoach - this saw a change in times which meant buses no longer connected to the train services from Rye and necessitates a wait of almost an hour at Rye station.

Similarly changes on the Marshlink route from Ashford to Brighton has further reduced Public transport connectivity for people living in Peasmarsh. In particular the through train to Brighton has now been cut and passengers need to change at Hampden Park.

As well as impacting on people wanting to use public transport to commute to work there is a further detrimental effect on those needing to use public transport to access health services. 2 hours between 'buses" means long waits (in areas where there are no indoor facilities, cafes etc) for those visiting the GP, dentist, optician and no longer any direct services to the local hospitals.

Public sector services are contracted to urban centres - Hastings (13 miles), Eastbourne (34 miles) with poor public transport links necessitating car usage.

There is the additional difficulty in regard to the use of train services namely at parking near the station in Rye is often overflowing and the main car park is only open for use on four weekdays.

Appendix 3

"Pippins" a property requiring compulsory purchase and demolition:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31100

Appendix 4

Potential vehicular access bisecting two neighbouring properties
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31101

Appendix 5
Land registry title plans with registration numbers ESX90737 and ESX310226
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31098
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31099

Appendix 6
Potential vehicular access backs directly onto the neighbouring property's garage
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31102

Appendix 7
BT exchange entrance opposite the entrance to Pippins
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31103

Appendix 8
Potential pedestrian access termed the 'Green Lane' with off-street parking areas owned by the local residents
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31104

Appendix 9
Photographs showing flooding that properties to the east of PEA1 in 2001 and 2014
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31105
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31106
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31107
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31108

Appendix 10
Drainage report dated 3 April 1999

1 The Old Hop Garden
The Maltings
Peasmarsh
East Sussex
TN31 6NS

3rd April 1999

Dear Mr Evans

I regret that I will not be able to meet with you this coming Friday as I have another appointment which, unfortunately, I am unable to reschedule. However, I would like to report to you my findings following my visit, to your garden earlier last month.

The amount, of water that was flowing across your ground, at the time of my inspection, did not, in my opinion, create an acceptable situation for you to maintain healthy plant growth. The degree of saturation of the soil creates anaerobic conditions, the result of which can lead to the eventual premature death of any planting that you may consider. Whilst you may think that your plants appear healthy, they are in actual fact drowning. It is for this reason that you have been constantly replacing plants that fail to grow. I accept that in the dryer months things appear to be normal, but it is during the wet months that your problems with growth will manifest themselves.

A simple solution to your problem of flooding would be to introduce a fairly extensive land drainage system, but this will present a complication of where to direct the water which is to be drained? Any draining of water which causes a nuisance to another party could easily lead to litigation. I could not see any evidence of a public surface water drain. In the near vicinity of your property, which could be used to prevent you causing a nuisance to any other land owner.

It is my opinion that the flooding to your land should be tackled from its source. It is quite acceptable for the land at the top of a hill to drain, by natural percolation, to land which is lower. Should a ditch be sited across the fall of the land, it. does not necessarily mean that water from above will naturally drain into it. Usually after a deluge of rain, the surface water runoff, hindered by the surface tension or saturation of the soil, will drain directly to a ditch. By gravitation, on the other hand, water can actually percolate to below the line of a ditch, to appear at a lower level. In your situation, however, the scenario is slightly different.

The land below you appears to have an effective drainage system which discharges direct into the ditch adjoining your western boundary. Unfortunately, this ditch does not appear to have been maintained to ensure that the drained water is effectively discharged into an adequate surface water system. From my inspection of this area, I consider that the surface water which is directed into the ditch is unable to flow in any definite direction and consequently overflows onto your land, thus causing a nuisance. If the owner/owners of this ditch were to ensure that the water entering into it drains directly into a properly maintained surface water system, then most of your problem would be resolved. It is my opinion that once the overflow onto your ground is solved, then you would only need to create a simple land drainage system to cope with percolated or gravitational water.

Furthermore, If it can be adequately proved, that the water flowing across your land is caused by the inadequate maintenance of the ditch system, i.e. that adjoining your western boundary, together with Inadequate discharge, then you will have course to pursue the Land Drainage Act 1991. A point worthy of note is Section 23 of the L.D.Act, which requires the Environment Agency to give consent to any obstruction to the water course. I say this, because at the time of my inspection, I could not determine an adequate discharge point to a surface water system. If the discharge point has been obstructed, then the Environment Agency should have given approval and records of its diversion. If, on the other hand, an obstruction to the water course has occurred without the consent, of the Environment Agency, then there are powers within the Land Drainage Act to remove this obstruction, If you should need further clarification of the Land Drainage Act, or matters relating to riparian owners responsibilities, then I am sure your Legal Advisor would be able to provide you with this Information.

My observations are made purely are a horticultural, not as a qualified Consulting Engineer specialising in drainage, who would be able to provide you with full calculations of drainage flow rate and saturation factors. If you should need the expertise of such a specialist, then I would be only too happy to recommend a local professional.

Yours faithfully
R C Burtenshaw A I.Hort

Appendix 11
Supermarket development, adjacent to petrol filling station
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31109

Appendix 12
Alternative development sites at PS5
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31110
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31111

Appendix 13
Alternative development sites at PS6 and PS7N
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31112
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31113
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31114

LEGAL COMPLIANCE and SOUNDNESS

I object to the proposed site at Peasmarsh as the current infrastructure and amenities of the village will not support 45 additional homes.

RDC admit their current plans for (1) drainage and (2) access to the A268 are not adequate for their proposed site and they intend to evaluate these at the planning stage. This short sightedness surely goes against the planning process and should not be supported without proper preparation of a long-term proposal for two crucial
aspects of RDC's proposed plans.

(1) Drainage
RDC's proposed site already has significant drainage problems as flooding in Farley's Way and along Griffin Lane show. Their drainage proposal is the installation of SuDS which is a short-term solution at best on heavy clay soils such as that at Peasmarsh.

I should like to know how RDC will compensate me when flooding appears in my garden which is at the bottom of the hill from the proposed site.

(2) Access to the A268
The proposed access to the A268 is via the demolished site of 'Pippins'. This would include a single track 'pinch point' within the site with a traffic priority resulting in queuing to exit or enter the site. This will create a major road hazard close to the top of Cock Hill with drivers coming into the sun, traffic parked up awaiting entry to the site and, at peak times, nose to tail traffic exiting the site.

(3) Infrastructure
In addition, the over development of the village will have a detrimental impact on community cohesion through the adverse pressures on existing services and community structures of the village of Peasmarsh.

Peasmarsh is not a town it is a small village and does not have a town's facilities. The addition of 45 new homes will equate to at least 150 new residents and will substantially increasing the population density, not only without the necessary amenities and infrastructure in place, but people will be crammed in cheek by jowl and this is not sustainable for communal village life.

Peasmarsh is an attractive and small settlement situated within a rural part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Although the Rother Core Strategy set a target to deliver 50 additional dwellings in the settlement, some 10 of these have already been permitted at The Maltings the subject of planning application no. RR/2016/4/P, leaving a balance of 40 to be provided for at Peasmarsh prior to the end of the Plan period.

The Option and Preferred Options version of the DaSA published in December 2016 considered and assessed a number of alternative sites but settled on the preferred site now the subject of proposed Policy PEA1 as shown on Figure 54 and on Inset Map 12 for Peasmarsh for 45 dwellings (net). The proposed access (regarding the demolition of a detached residential property known as 'Pippins') is unsuitable however, as an access road in this location, immediately adjoining the other residential properties on either side (at 'Wheelers' to the east and 'Cochland Cottage' to the west) will have an unacceptable impact upon their amenities and living conditions as a result of noise disturbance and fumes from traffic turning at the new road junction and when passing along their side garden boundaries.

It is also understood that the land is the subject of surface water flooding and it remains unclear how the land could accommodate the proposed development without giving rise to further flooding or transferring the flood risk to adjoining land.

For these reasons, the proposed housing allocation is defective and is not properly justified set against the potentially better alternative available and given that suitable access cannot be achieved that does not either rely on the demolition of 'Pippins' or cause serious loss of amenity to the two neighbouring properties either side, the proposed housing allocation will not be effective in meeting the Core Strategy's housing target for the settlement and in this respect, the DaSA housing provision at Peasmarsh has not been positively prepared.

The draft Plan should therefore, be modified to delete this proposed housing site and other alternative sites should be reviewed as to their better suitability to accommodate the additional 40 dwellings required.