The site in question is outside the Fairlight development boundary and classified as an AONB, it is productive farmland, which is much needed for food production, it is host to a diverse range of ecosystems supporting dozens of species of birdlife, mammals, reptiles & insect life. Fairlight also has the benefit of "Dark Night Skies". The Landscape assessment appears to have been carried out with this development in mind rather than from a neutral perspective, how is the visual impact low when the site can be seen from more than half of Fairlight Cove village, from the country park and from "upper" Fairlight. Landscape sensitivity would be Medium-High not Medium-Low, Landscape Value is correct at High, this would make the landscape capacity "Low".

"The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014-2019
Loss of productive farmland, there were 3192 registered farm holdings in 2008, by 2010 this had dropped to 1563, there was a corresponding job toss in agriculture of almost 1000 jobs, with a knock on effect for related jobs & services. RDC claim to have a policy of fostering & supporting farming & the continued use of farmland for farming.

The primary purpose of AONB is to "Conserve & Enhance natural beauty" '"Natural Beauty" is not just the look of the landscape, but includes landform and geology, plants and animals, landscape features and the rich history of human settlement over the centuries'. More recently the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 clarified that land used for agriculture, woodlands, parkland or with physiographical features partly the product of human intervention in the landscape, is not prevented from being treated as an area of 'natural beauty'.

Nowhere in this plan is it indicated how this proposed development will conserve & enhance natural beauty, if anything the reverse is true & so it is unsound.

Section 3. 2.2 mentions the "virtually continuous ribbon development from Hastings to Cliff end", 3 gaps of 1/2 mile hardly fall into the continuous category.

Section 4. 3.4 Landscape Assessment area B2 "The wooded ghyll stream to the south of this site is a key component of the character of which could be affected if this part of the site were to be developed", that same stream runs all the way down from the country park through area B1, how will developing B1 not affect the wooded ghyll in the same way? The stream is not "mainly culverted" it is in fact mainly open save for where it is crossed by a road. The back gardens of Broadway form only a small part of the southern boundary as the road pulls away from the filed after a short distance. "Natural Character" The2 of the major field boundaries are mentioned, then the writer goes on to say the field boundaries are lost? Which is it? The OS map of 1883 shows the same boundaries as today with the addition of the houses built along Pett Level rd & Waites Lane, the former boundaries being the roads themselves, the other 2 boundaries remain unchanged. Area B1 was separated from B2 by the still existing hedgerow, it is B2 that has lost its divisional hedge.

Local views from public areas are not restricted, indeed the land is visible from more than 50% of the village & even more so as one moves up to the country park.

At present the experience of dark night skies is not affected by lighting from the houses as they are all drawn back from the field, I doubt the report writer has seen the area at night or possible at all. enclosed maps show that contrary to the report: the field called B1 has not changed, B2 has.

Map supplied: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31125