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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to make the following points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that there is a proposal to infill with houses on an area of land behind houses situated in Main Street in Peasmarsh. I have been made aware of the rough area although I have not seen an actual plan. I have tried to find the plan for this and for other alternative sites nearby but have been unable to find a map on the Rother web site. I am told it is well hidden on a very large document. The maps of the proposed sites I am informed are on pages 281 and 411 respectively but I have not been able to locate the documents.

I can therefor only make general objections. Firstly that any site that has any access from the main A268 can only be of great danger to the villagers of Peasmarsh. This road is an extremely busy road particularly used by many very large vehicles including farm vehicles. If as I am informed the proposed entrance to the favoured site is via the area of Pipins in Main Street I would say that the visibility from this area into the main road is very restricted and in my opinion dangerous.

I accept there is a need for new housing and that it should be shared around the County of Sussex, including Rother. However I have lived in this village for over 30 years and I believe that Peasmarsh has, in that time, had more than its fair share of infilling. I also believe that this proposal goes against the Government guidelines for building more properties. The government is proposing to build new garden Cities and towns with the idea that that there should be open spaces where
there are dwellings. However in Peasmarsh the proposition is to infill the green spaces around and behind existing buildings. This has already been done in two previous building projects at the Mailings and the site of the old Parleys Garage and large area behind and around it.

There should be no more infilling of the village and if it is accepted that Peasmarsh must take more housing then a site around the edges of the village should be considered before any decision is made. However I would have thought that there are other areas in Rother that should be considered where little building has taken place.

Other factors that should be taken into consideration should be Public Transport (Very poor). No industry or other employment in the village, an increase in young people particularly from the more affordable homes, will need more schooling which is not available, and the lack of other amenities such as decent drainage. A few years ago there were several instances of flood damage at the bottom end of the village because of the poor drainage.

I can say little else at this stage as I have not had a proper sight of the proposals even though I contacted the Council on 01424 787639 as advised by the Council Officer in Rye Library. All I got on that number was an answering machine and although I left my email details I did not even get an acknowledgement. Nothing new there as Rother District only appears interested in anything to do with Bexhill.

I shall have to submit this opposition today in its present form as I understand that all objections have to be in by the 20 February.

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

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

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

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

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

In descending order of preference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In descending order of preference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peasmarsh does not offer satisfactory public transport or employment opportunities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peasmarsh does not offer satisfactory public transport or employment opportunities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peasmarsh does not offer satisfactory public transport or employment opportunities.

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

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

Alternative Sites

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

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

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

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

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

In descending order of preference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref DaSA Part C
Dear Sir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

Roger Evans.

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

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

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

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

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

In descending order of preference:

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

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

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

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

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3

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

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Site 1

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

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

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

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

Alternative Site 2

Shown on the Planning Map as PS3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasmarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 81

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General observations on constraints within Peasmarsh infrastructure

With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the proposal to add another 45 dwellings this will increase the population of the village by around 120 (2.3 people per household 2011 census) an approximate 10% increase. It is hard to see how the village will be able to absorb this increase without the issues detailed below being addressed - which sadly this document fails to acknowledge or address.

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

b. Doctors surgery - Residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre or The Northiam Surgery both of which will be under increased pressure by developments within the surrounding villages and may have to start limiting their patients to those within their catchment area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 24

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

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





































































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

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

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

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















Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasrnarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.










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