Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Rother District Council Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA)

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 26 October 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Natural England has reviewed the Proposed DaSA and accompanying appendices together with the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Our comments on these documents are provided below, which I hope you find useful.

Overarching comment regarding soundness

Natural England welcomes the approach taken by your authority to consult with Natural England at various stages in the preparation of the DaSA. Generally, it appears that the majority of our comments/concerns have been addressed in this version of the plan, and we are pleased that our engagement has resulted in a plan that responds effectively to issues relating to the natural environment.

With reference to soundness, we offer the following advice:

Policy RHA2: Harbour Road Employment Area

Part of this allocation is within Rye Harbour SSSI (overlying saltmarsh by Rye Harbour Road). Development in this area would result in direct loss of SSSI features. We therefore advise that this area is not suitable for development as part of the Employment Area. As proposed, the policy is inconsistent with national policy to protect designated sites (namely para 175 (b) and see also paras 170, 172, 174) and with local plan policy (DEN4). On this basis we object to the allocation as currently proposed, and advise that the boundary is amended to exclude the SSSI.

Policy WES1: Land at Westfield Down, Westfield

We are concerned that development of this area could have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Our concern particularly relates to the potential introduction of flood lighting which may be associated with the sports pitch(es). An assessment of the potential impacts of developing this allocated site does not appear to have been completed. As proposed, we advise that this allocation is not justified as it does not provide sufficient evidence to support its inclusion in the Local Plan with regard to impacts on the AONB, considered against reasonable alternatives. Pending further information, it is our advice that this policy may be found to be inconsistent with national policy with regard to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within a nationally protected landscape (Paragraphs 170 & 172, NPPF 2018).

With reference to paragraph 172 of the NPPF, it is for the decision maker to decide if a proposal constitutes major development. If this allocation does constitute major development, the allocation should be assessed against the three tests (NPPF para 172), including clear and reasonable justification if exceptional circumstances and public benefit are to be demonstrated, in accordance with national policy and policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the proposed Local Plan. If it cannot be proven that these criteria are met, we advise this allocation is not pursued. If this allocation is not considered to be major development, we would advise that the policy includes wording requiring early consideration of impacts (such as, but not limited to, floodlighting) to ensure impacts to the AONB can be avoided, and the allocation does not conflict with other policies within this local plan (namely DEN1 and DEN2).

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

Natural England generally concurs with the conclusions drawn in the HRA which state that no adverse effects on the integrity on the Pevensey Levels SAC/Ramsar and Dungeness Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA/Ramsar are expected to result from development provided by the Rother DaSA Local Plan, alone or in combination with other plans and projects. We agree that adequate mitigation strategies as identified in Tables 5 and 6 of the HRA are in place to ensure there will be no adverse effects with the exception of the following:

RHA1: Land at the Stonework Cottages, Rye Harbour

We advise that as currently proposed, the policy refers to groundwater impacts but does not include reference to other impact pathways and the importance of including adequate protection measures/surface water management. Without adequate surface water protection measures, we consider there remains a significant possibility of impacts to surface water quality, which could have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA/Ramsar. We do not currently agree with the conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity for this policy. Please see our comments for this policy at Appendix A.

Natural England confirms that in accordance with section 5.1.2. of the HRA, project-level HRA will be necessary.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

Natural England do not have any specific additional comments to make on the Sustainability Appraisal.

Other comments

Further comments regarding policy wording is provided at Appendix A. We have recommended some wording amendments to improve policy with regard to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

I hope that these comments are useful. We would be happy to discuss our comments further should the need arise but in the meantime if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. For queries relating to the specific advice in this letter please contact amy.kitching@naturalengland.org.uk. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation, please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

Appendix A text - amended wording:
Rother District Council Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA)

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 26 October 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Natural England has reviewed the Proposed DaSA and accompanying appendices together with the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Our comments on these documents are provided below, which I hope you find useful.

Overarching comment regarding soundness
Natural England welcomes the approach taken by your authority to consult with Natural England at various stages in the preparation of the DaSA. Generally, it appears that the majority of our comments/concerns have been addressed in this version of the plan, and we are pleased that our engagement has resulted in a plan that responds effectively to issues relating to the natural environment.

With reference to soundness, we offer the following advice:

Policy RHA2: Harbour Road Employment Area

Part of this allocation is within Rye Harbour SSSI (overlying saltmarsh by Rye Harbour Road). Development in this area would result in direct loss of SSSI features. We therefore advise that this area is not suitable for development as part of the Employment Area. As proposed, the policy is inconsistent with national policy to protect designated sites (namely para 175 (b) and see also paras 170, 172, 174) and with local plan policy (DEN4). On this basis we object to the allocation as currently proposed, and advise that the boundary is amended to exclude the SSSI.

Policy WES1: Land at Westfield Down, Westfield

We are concerned that development of this area could have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Our concern particularly relates to the potential introduction of flood lighting which may be associated with the sports pitch(es). An assessment of the potential impacts of developing this allocated site does not appear to have been completed. As proposed, we advise that this allocation is not justified as it does not provide sufficient evidence to support its inclusion in the Local Plan with regard to impacts on the AONB, considered against reasonable alternatives. Pending further information, it is our advice that this policy may be found to be inconsistent with national policy with regard to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within a nationally protected landscape (Paragraphs 170 & 172, NPPF 2018).

With reference to paragraph 172 of the NPPF, it is for the decision maker to decide if a proposal constitutes major development. If this allocation does constitute major development, the allocation should be assessed against the three tests (NPPF para 172), including clear and reasonable justification if exceptional circumstances and public benefit are to be demonstrated, in accordance with national policy and policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the proposed Local Plan. If it cannot be proven that these criteria are met, we advise this allocation is not pursued. If this allocation is not considered to be major development, we would advise that the policy includes wording requiring early consideration of impacts (such as, but not limited to, floodlighting) to ensure impacts to the AONB can be avoided, and the allocation does not conflict with other policies within this local plan (namely DEN1 and DEN2).

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Natural England generally concurs with the conclusions drawn in the HRA which state that no adverse effects on the integrity on the Pevensey Levels SAC/Ramsar and Dungeness Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA/Ramsar are expected to result from development provided by the Rother DaSA Local Plan, alone or in combination with other plans and projects. We agree that adequate mitigation strategies as identified in Tables 5 and 6 of the HRA are in place to ensure there will be no adverse effects with the exception of the following:

RHA1: Land at the Stonework Cottages, Rye Harbour

We advise that as currently proposed, the policy refers to groundwater impacts but does not include reference to other impact pathways and the importance of including adequate protection measures/surface water management. Without adequate surface water protection measures, we consider there remains a significant possibility of impacts to surface water quality, which could have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA/Ramsar. We do not currently agree with the conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity for this policy. Please see our comments for this policy at Appendix A.

Natural England confirms that in accordance with section 5.1.2. of the HRA, project-level HRA will be necessary.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

Natural England do not have any specific additional comments to make on the Sustainability Appraisal.

Other comments

Further comments regarding policy wording is provided at Appendix A. We have recommended some wording amendments to improve policy with regard to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

I hope that these comments are useful. We would be happy to discuss our comments further should the need arise but in the meantime if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. For queries relating to the specific advice in this letter please contact amy.kitching@naturalengland.org.uk. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation, please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

Appendix A text - amended wording:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31182

Appendix A - General advice on policy, including recommended amendments to policy wording

Natural England provides the following comments on policies and/or suggested amendments to policy wording. The comments/amendments should not be treated as formal objections, but are provided where we think policy wording could benefit from clarification, or where more robust wording is needed to secure protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

All development within or affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on its character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan. Development within the High Weald AONB should be small-scale, in keeping with the landscape and settlement pattern; major development will be inappropriate except in exceptional circumstances.

Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites

All proposals for camping, caravan and purpose-built holiday accommodation must
(i) safeguard intrinsic and distinctive landscape character and amenities, paying particular regard to the conservation of the High Weald AONB in accordance with the High Weald AONB Management Plan and undeveloped coastline, and be supported by landscaping proposals appropriate to the local landscape character;
(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;

Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage

In addition to points in section (iv), we recommend that SuDS are linked up wherever possible to achieve greater benefits for water management and wildlife, to contribute to green infrastructure and support robust ecological networks.

Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park

Within the Countryside Park area, proposals will only be acceptable where they:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains to biodiversity within the Park, where practicable;

Policy HAS3: Land north of A265, Ivyhouse Lane, Hastings

The detail map for this allocation shows the site to lie within the AONB. Although the existing site is developed, the policy wording should recognise the location of this site within the designated landscape, as opposed to its setting (when compared with wording of Policy HAS2 which is within the setting of the AONB).

Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area

The supporting text recognises that this site lies within the AONB, however it is important that this is also reflected in the wording of the policy. You may wish to consider clarifying the aims of the allocation (to provide multifunctional greenspace) in order to prevent applications for inappropriate development in this area.

Policy PEA1: Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh

Land south of Main Street, as shown on the Policies Map, is allocated for residential development and amenity open space including a retained traditional orchard and children's play area. Proposals will be permitted where:
(vi) other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features are retained and enhanced, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond (delete the words: "as far as reasonably practicable").

Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour

This allocation site lies adjacent to the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site, which is sensitive to water quality impacts. In order to protect the designated sites, proposals must consider all potential pathways for hydrological impacts upon the adjacent designated sites (not just groundwater). A comprehensive approach must be undertaken in order to mitigate any potential adverse impacts, which in this case is likely to require the inclusion of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availability of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018

Representation to Planning Inspector In regard to Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocation Local Plan-Peasmarsh

I wish to make the following representations:

Summary

It is respectfully submitted that this allocation must be rejected because it fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Lack of meaningful consultation with affected parties
2. Inaccurate data published by RDC
3. Accurate but contextually misleading or irrelevant data given by RDC in adhering to their preferred site
4. Insufficient weight given to the affected residents and the impact on amenities
5. Failure to meet Sustainability Objective

The above points are justified and expanded below:

Legal Compliance
Item 2. - Statement of Community Involvement. Generally the community has not been involved. Even as late as today (3rd December) I have received written communication from affected residents who had no inkling of the proposed development.*

The Council's Consultation Charter states that 'consultation is a fundamental part of good public service'.

In the interests of brevity I will not go through all the 9 listed requirements but this proposal fails on Items 2.2.2, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9.

It cannot be claimed that there has been consultation 'based on openness, trust integrity' when a significant number of the people most affected were completely uninformed. A list of such persons can be provided if required*.

More specifically in RDC Statement of Community Involvement dated Dec 2015 page 2 item 6 is the statement " All existing contacts on our database were contacted by post or email depending on their preferred contact method". This has not been done.

Soundness

Item 2 Justified - Making sure DaSA Local Plan is based on solid facts and research. It is not.

In the preamble 15.77 statement @ page 281 'shortage of accessible public open space. Answer: The area is surrounded by footpaths and woodland allowing access within a mile or so

15.79 Statement @ page 282 Flood risk impacts are negligible. Answer: Completely untrue. Pictures available to show existing flooding without the additional run off from further housing on the RDC preferred site. Correspondence with RDC on the matter of flooding in 1999 and 2000 is available and originals are held by Maples Teesdale LLP (solicitors)

Page 282 Question 81. Do not agree this is the preferred site? Answer: No. RDC preferred site is geologically, topographically and socially unsuitable. Preferred site is at PS7S, Ps6 with access via roundabout via PS5. In a meeting of some 40 people on 6th November unanimously rejected the RDC preferred site (while endorsing an alternative site).

The proposal fails in a number of ways (a) the statement on public transport is out of date (b) the objectives identified in DaSA Local Plan item 10 requires the reduction of road congestion- the proposal results in the opposite effect; Item 11 requires the reduction of greenhouse gasses- the proposal results in the opposite because of the additional vehicle usage; Item 12 'minimise the risk of flooding'- The opposite effect is likely- matter dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Availablity of medical and dental services. Northiam surgery has recently announced that they are no longer prepared to take patients from Peasmarsh. Dental facilities are available in Rye but only for fee paying patients. RDC reply to that 'there are no particular capacity problems for GP in Rother' may be an accurate statement but is contextually misleading. The patient without transport in Peasmarsh cannot sensibly access GP surgeries across the wide area of Rother.

Effective: An allocation cannot be considered either sound, justified or effective if a more satisfactory alternative has been proposed. The alternative proposal, would avoid the serious site access problem and would probably present less issues on drainage.

Impact on amenity of residents. Little attention has been given to the impact on the amenity of a significant (about 50) residents. While such adverse impact is an acceptable price if there is no alternative it should not be contemplated where such alternative has been offered. RDC planners seem to have dismissed this issue either by suggesting it would not have significant effect on residential amenity- a judgmental issue that is not accepted or defending their rejection of the alternative site by 'impact on AONB which argument site inspection would dismiss as unsound.

Site Specific Issues

Drainage RDC state (page 282 DaSA Local Plan item15.79) 'Flood risks are negligible'. Not so.

In their replies to comments made in regards to effect of further building 'The Council does not have a record of the particular issue at Farleys Way' . This correspondence is available and is now with the solicitors Maples Teesdale.
RDC further state that a 'sustainable drainage scheme is likely to be required'.
In the light of prolonged local experience of flooding no site allocation can be considered sound unless and until a full examination of this matter has been conducted. It should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

Site Access Heavy weight (farm) traffic accessing (ingress and egress) Old House Lane taken together with the topography, in which the access point is just on the brow of Cock Hill compounds with low winter sun towards the South East and the volume of traffic on the A268 already makes this a hazardous area. The addition of large volume of traffic accessing A268 via a 'choke' (reversible one way system) at the site of 'Pippins', which is just to the South East of the brow of Cock Hill would greatly exacerbate this risk with implications for RDC liability in the foreseeable event of serious collision. The risk problems would be further compounded by parked traffic awaiting ingress to the site.

Examination of this issue should be regarded as a condition precedent to allocation.

C R Dent
Peasmarsh
5.12.2018

Appendix attaching to Submission on Development and Site Allocation Local Plan- Peasmarsh
Submitted by C R Dent dated 6th December, 2018