Please see attached comments on draft Local Plan, including Brede Valley Landscape Assessment and East Sussex Landscape Assessment.

Adequate space for parking of all onsite vehicles, including visitor parking and deliveries and waste collection should be thoughtfully integrated with pedestrian safety in mind. Careful ideas for external lighting is required to mitigate negative impact on night sky vision whilst ensuring onsite safety. This is often an area for conflict with people. Dark skies can be very therapeutic in our busy society.

Incorporating the requirement for tree-lined streets is welcome. In addition, the local plan should be informed by the Tree Equity approach, which seeks to prioritise urban tree planting where there is the greatest social and environmental need.
The UK Tree Equity scorecard and map assesses urban areas for tree equity out of a total score of 100, identifying the highest priority areas for additional trees. https://uk.treeequityscore.org/map#9/50.85/0.4489

I will start off by commenting that it is a very detailed ambitious plan covering many aspects of life in Rother. I am not sure whether many parts of it will come to fruition due to the cost and I understand that Rother is putting aside a huge sum of money to repair our dreadful roads. The roads suffer from the amount of lorries and industrial vehicles which thunder through our towns and villages.

Due to the incompetence of the Council the Plan which should have been out on 2024 is now due in 2026.

Our local plan which was worked on for 3 years and is very detailed was supposed to take us to 2039. That has now been changed without consultation to 2028. Why?

My comments of course mainly relate to Peasmarsh where I live but I have made comments on other parts of the Plan

In section 1.9 Peasmarsh has been missed out as one of the Villages which have a Local Adopted Plan so it should state 8 Villages – not 7.

In Fig. 35 on Page 173 it does state that Peasmarsh has a Local Adopted Plan.

Our Village, Peasmarsh suffers from flooding, sewerage problems and electricity failures.

The warden assisted development in the Maltings was closed – people were relocated away and a large new development built on the site ( the only 3 storey development in Peasmarsh). The grassed area was built on and now properties in Farm Gardens below this development have flooding problems as no measure was put in place to cope with the problems caused by concreting this entire area. Also the roads were left in a poor state from all the heavy equipment and vehicles used to erect this development.

I agree with high standards for building (though no mention was made of fire safety).

The very old listed Church, at the highest point of the Village, suffered from flooding last year and this year so half of the Graves and the path were under water. Not much hope for the Village which is lower down!

No mention is made of the specific needs of children and the facilities required to enable them to do well in this area.

Farmland should be protected which will help food security and fits well with your Green to the Core and Live Well Locally emphasis in the Plan

Our farmers need all the help they can get and their produce and livestock means we can buy locally (less food and transport miles)

8.94 I agree that it is not appropriate to make provision for higher levels of care beds.

Mention was made in the Plan of Roads and Streets but none about Lanes – which you find in most Villages.

Public Rights of Way should be upheld though a proviso should be added regarding dogs being kept on leads on fields containing livestock. Again a sheep owned by our local farmer was savaged by a dog allowed to run loose.

I agree that Ancient Woodlands, SSSI’s should be protected and Dungeness which is a unique site in itself.

I agree that Habitats and Dark Skies should be protected. I hope we never have street lighting in Peasmarsh.

Brownfield sites and disused buildings should be identified and used for any new development NOT Greenfield sites

In principle I agree with ENVI – Coastal Water and Flood Risk Management and EC07.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

Q2. Council feels that both are key to our Community with equal priority.

Q24. Clarification of "all qualifying development" is sought.
Council would like to prevent pre-emptive works at sites prior to submission of planning applications.

Q28. Agree the principle but very hard to visualise dwellings per hectare. Particularly when looking at rural areas.
Examples in our location would be helpful ie number of properties in Coronation Gardens per hectare, for example.


Q30. Whilst we feel this is a positive ambition, this may be impracticle for a town such as Battle.

Q33. In agreement with proposals, but clear access must be available. Blackfriars access to Battle Railway Station is a point in case of outside site access.

Q34. Council should make developers responsible for access outside site compulsory.

Q35. Applaud this objective but would once again highlight the Blackfriars development not having easy access to the Railway Station which would make walking outside of this 400m proposal.

Q39. This is an important policy and Council would like this enforced. However, it is disappointing that the Blackfriars development has not been approved in accordance with existing Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan policies.

Q46. Council feels that consideration should be to all disabilities, not only dementia sufferers; such as less ambulant people and those with hearing difficulties etc.
In relation to play areas, these should be sited in an appropriate safe, central location.

Q64. The topography of the central area of Battle town does not lend itself to significant further dwellings to be developed within the development boundary.
There may be very small opportunties for developments outside the development boundary but within the 800m constraint.
Broadly speaking, the number of dwellings suggested seems to be most unachievable.
During the development of the Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan, despite calls for employment opportunity developments, there was only one response.

Q74. These policies should be strictly adherred to, to protect the environment.

Q75. Subsequent to this Reg 18 document, Council would like to emphasise that the "Fir Tree Cottage" site at Netherfield only has temporary permission for three years and must be returned to agricultural use.

Q76. We do not agree that Battle is placed in the "Greater opportunities for growth" column in figure 35. In main part due to the topography of the Civil Parish and, at best, should be placed in the "Medium growth opportunities".
We are pleased to see that Mountfield and Whatlington in our SDO have been recognised in the column "Limited growth opportunities".

Q104. We welcome this policy.

Q116. For planning applications where affordable housing is approved, following applications to change the conditions will be greatly deplicated.

Q119. Council does not agree with this policy. There should be a mix of housing - 'pepperpotting'.

Q121. We do not wish to see this, as above.

Q183. LAN3 paragrpah 3 should have roof lights added as an example of discouraged glazing.
Planning applicants should be encouraged to use electrochromic glass.

Please see attached document for the full submission from Westfield Parish Council.

Please see attachment