I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

In addition to the above I also object due to the impact on our local wildlife and the destruction of habitat in particular for our native reptile and amphibians. The numbers of our reptiles and amphibians are all in serious decline and to destroy this habitat that is used for breeding would reduce their numbers further.

Living and working in fairlight for 50 years plus there has always been a sewage problem especially at a property call leather wagon on the fairlight road .
As for us at Applewood and our next door neighbour we as records show are having a problem now as the sewer/ drain has had a camera down and that show that there’s been a collapse when the pipework crosses the road .

There’s been no movement on this after several reports the next door neighbour her toilet over flows.

So fairlight sewage system is way out of date.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

Please consider our appeal and preserve our village.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

We support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and we call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

We support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and we call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector's findings on Wakeham's Pond field: re the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham's Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspectors findings on Wakehams Pond Field re:the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and the extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakehams Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

I support the 2022 appeal inspectors findings on Wakeham pond field re:the risk of groundwater flooding is to high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakehams pond field to be de - allocated in the new local plan.

I would like to add my support to the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s finding on the Wakeham’s Pond Field. The risk of further ground water flooding and sewage pollution that extra houses would create on this site would cause major environmental problems. This area is totally unsuitable for development and in my opinion should be de-allocated in the new Local Plan

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

If this planning application is approved it could cause loss of life with the immense amount of traffic during and after construction.Also you are aware of all the never ending problems with all services required.If loss off life occurs you know that you are and will be held responsible. Fairlight residents are struggling with many problems now so how can you ever pass this application.

My wife and I think it is time to reconsider Rothers district councils proposal to allow 35 houses on the Wakeham’s Pond Field. This site should be de-allocated from the draft local plan and subsequent final plan.

With the possibility of global warming changing our weather patterns, last winter being one of the wettest in history and with many experts predicting this to be the new norm, the increased risk of flooding locally has already been proved, when some housing in Pett
level were inundated with flood water and sewage the winter of 2022/23. Any development at Wakeham’s Pond Field will exacerbate this problem. Covering the land with hard landscaping, roads and houses will effect local natural dissipation of rain water and the added use of water by the houses will further increase the problems we already have. The chances of Southern water improving the drainage locally is nil due to the enormous amount of problems they have.

The local roads Pett Level Road, Battery Hill and Fairlight Road are already at capacity and the heavy lorries required for the development would cause major problems on these undersize roads. It is often a problem for large cars/vans meeting an oncoming bus at the moment.
Also once developed these roads and feeder Lanes would not cope with the extra car movements envisaged.

The development would not be integrated with the current village as access is envisaged to be from Pett Level Road with no direct connection to the current village.

Removing the allocation from the draft plan would mean the council will not have the costly, tax payer funded, planning hearings.

Developing so close to the main road will alter the feel of remoteness for the village. Add to that there is a lack of local doctors and school places.

My wife and I think it is time to reconsider Rothers district councils proposal to allow 35 houses on the Wakeham’s Pond Field. This site should be de-allocated from the draft local plan and subsequent final plan.

With the possibility of global warming changing our weather patterns, last winter being one of the wettest in history and with many experts predicting this to be the new norm, the increased risk of flooding locally has already been proved, when some housing in Pett
level were inundated with flood water and sewage the winter of 2022/23. Any development at Wakeham’s Pond Field will exacerbate this problem. Covering the land with hard landscaping, roads and houses will effect local natural dissipation of rain water and the added use of water by the houses will further increase the problems we already have. The chances of Southern water improving the drainage locally is nil due to the enormous amount of problems they have.

The local roads Pett Level Road, Battery Hill and Fairlight Road are already at capacity and the heavy lorries required for the development would cause major problems on these undersize roads. It is often a problem for large cars/vans meeting an oncoming bus at the moment.
Also once developed these roads and feeder Lanes would not cope with the extra car movements envisaged.

The development would not be integrated with the current village as access is envisaged to be from Pett Level Road with no direct connection to the current village.

Removing the allocation from the draft plan would mean the council will not have the costly, tax payer funded, planning hearings.

Developing so close to the main road will alter the feel of remoteness for the village. Add to that there is a lack of local doctors and school places.

My wife and I think it is time to reconsider Rothers district councils proposal to allow 35 houses on the Wakeham’s Pond Field. This site should be de-allocated from the draft local plan and subsequent final plan.

With the possibility of global warming changing our weather patterns, last winter being one of the wettest in history and with many experts predicting this to be the new norm, the increased risk of flooding locally has already been proved, when some housing in Pett
level were inundated with flood water and sewage the winter of 2022/23. Any development at Wakeham’s Pond Field will exacerbate this problem. Covering the land with hard landscaping, roads and houses will effect local natural dissipation of rain water and the added use of water by the houses will further increase the problems we already have. The chances of Southern water improving the drainage locally is nil due to the enormous amount of problems they have.

The local roads Pett Level Road, Battery Hill and Fairlight Road are already at capacity and the heavy lorries required for the development would cause major problems on these undersize roads. It is often a problem for large cars/vans meeting an oncoming bus at the moment.
Also once developed these roads and feeder Lanes would not cope with the extra car movements envisaged.

The development would not be integrated with the current village as access is envisaged to be from Pett Level Road with no direct connection to the current village.

Removing the allocation from the draft plan would mean the council will not have the costly, tax payer funded, planning hearings.

Developing so close to the main road will alter the feel of remoteness for the village. Add to that there is a lack of local doctors and school places.

My wife and I think it is time to reconsider Rothers district councils proposal to allow 35 houses on the Wakeham’s Pond Field. This site should be de-allocated from the draft local plan and subsequent final plan.

With the possibility of global warming changing our weather patterns, last winter being one of the wettest in history and with many experts predicting this to be the new norm, the increased risk of flooding locally has already been proved, when some housing in Pett
level were inundated with flood water and sewage the winter of 2022/23. Any development at Wakeham’s Pond Field will exacerbate this problem. Covering the land with hard landscaping, roads and houses will effect local natural dissipation of rain water and the added use of water by the houses will further increase the problems we already have. The chances of Southern water improving the drainage locally is nil due to the enormous amount of problems they have.

The local roads Pett Level Road, Battery Hill and Fairlight Road are already at capacity and the heavy lorries required for the development would cause major problems on these undersize roads. It is often a problem for large cars/vans meeting an oncoming bus at the moment.
Also once developed these roads and feeder Lanes would not cope with the extra car movements envisaged.

The development would not be integrated with the current village as access is envisaged to be from Pett Level Road with no direct connection to the current village.

Removing the allocation from the draft plan would mean the council will not have the costly, tax payer funded, planning hearings.

Developing so close to the main road will alter the feel of remoteness for the village. Add to that there is a lack of local doctors and school places.

My wife and I think it is time to reconsider Rothers district councils proposal to allow 35 houses on the Wakeham’s Pond Field. This site should be de-allocated from the draft local plan and subsequent final plan.

With the possibility of global warming changing our weather patterns, last winter being one of the wettest in history and with many experts predicting this to be the new norm, the increased risk of flooding locally has already been proved, when some housing in Pett
level were inundated with flood water and sewage the winter of 2022/23. Any development at Wakeham’s Pond Field will exacerbate this problem. Covering the land with hard landscaping, roads and houses will effect local natural dissipation of rain water and the added use of water by the houses will further increase the problems we already have. The chances of Southern water improving the drainage locally is nil due to the enormous amount of problems they have.

The local roads Pett Level Road, Battery Hill and Fairlight Road are already at capacity and the heavy lorries required for the development would cause major problems on these undersize roads. It is often a problem for large cars/vans meeting an oncoming bus at the moment.
Also once developed these roads and feeder Lanes would not cope with the extra car movements envisaged.

The development would not be integrated with the current village as access is envisaged to be from Pett Level Road with no direct connection to the current village.

Removing the allocation from the draft plan would mean the council will not have the costly, tax payer funded, planning hearings.

Developing so close to the main road will alter the feel of remoteness for the village. Add to that there is a lack of local doctors and school places.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

This year with all the rainfall we’ve had, our sewers in Shepherds Way backed up, plus our garden was like a pond, which appears may be the new normal with global warming. Wetter winters, (and drier summers, maybe). If planning decisions are meant to mitigate and adapt to climate emergency and be resilient to future changing climate, then Wakehams Pond Field should not be built on and definitely be taken off the Local Plan in line with the ‘Green to the Core’ priority.

If Wakehams Pond Field was allocated for even a small amount of houses, it would of course open the floodgates to further development and a worsening of the current drainage situation in Fairlight.

A development on Wakehams Pond Field wouldn’t be part of the Fairlight community. It would be totally detached from it being ‘down the road’. Residents without a car would be disadvantaged. It certainly wouldn’t fit in with the ‘Live Well Locally’ priority. And it wouldn’t knit into the existing fabric of Fairlight’s settlement either.

A development would ruin the outlook for existing homes in Pett Road, Waites Lane and Broadway - It would not respect the locality and it would distract from the character and appearance of it. ‘It is not compatible with both the existing and planned use of adjacent land’. And again, if this one field is left open to development, I don’t doubt it would very sadly open the way for further field development in Fairlight in line with the statement above about adjacent land. The remaining countryside in Fairlight needs to be protected from light and noise pollution, and the irreversible destruction of wildlife habitat. Wildlife doesn’t understand ‘wildlife corridors’ when they have roamed an area for generations.

Pages 298, 300 and 305 of the Local Plan talk about alterations to existing buildings and to outbuildings. That they do not unreasonably harm adjoining properties in terms of light, massing or overlooking. That they conserve landscape character and the qualities do not suburbanise sensitive countryside. And in relation to garden extensions, that they should conserve the intrinsic value and locally distinctive character of the countryside, and conditions be attached to mitigate visual impacts. Whilst these sections are not referring to new builds, the inference should surely be the same.

The Market Garden development in Fairlight is not the subject of my email, but I am saddened that the Local Plan appears to have been ignored, which I’m sure concerns every resident when further new builds are rumoured. The houses in Market Garden do harm the amenities of the adjoining properties, including loss of light and privacy and having an overbearing presence and intrusion on the houses in Lower Waites Lane. The landscape character has not been preserved. Trees and hedgerows have been lost along with wildlife habitat. Noise pollution will be the next issue as the new houses become occupied. I very much feel for the residents in Lower Waites Lane in particular.

With ‘health and well being’ part of the Local Plan, the Market Garden development has not considered the health and well being of existing residents, and I plead that Wakehams Pond Field please be removed from the Local Plan, as development will not only affect those living nearby, but also those whose sewers have already backed up, and those affected by flooding and pollution further down the coast in Pett Level.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

This year with all the rainfall we’ve had, our sewers in Shepherds Way backed up, plus our garden was like a pond, which appears may be the new normal with global warming. Wetter winters, (and drier summers, maybe). If planning decisions are meant to mitigate and adapt to climate emergency and be resilient to future changing climate, then Wakehams Pond Field should not be built on and definitely be taken off the Local Plan in line with the ‘Green to the Core’ priority.

If Wakehams Pond Field was allocated for even a small amount of houses, it would of course open the floodgates to further development and a worsening of the current drainage situation in Fairlight.

A development on Wakehams Pond Field wouldn’t be part of the Fairlight community. It would be totally detached from it being ‘down the road’. Residents without a car would be disadvantaged. It certainly wouldn’t fit in with the ‘Live Well Locally’ priority. And it wouldn’t knit into the existing fabric of Fairlight’s settlement either.

A development would ruin the outlook for existing homes in Pett Road, Waites Lane and Broadway - It would not respect the locality and it would distract from the character and appearance of it. ‘It is not compatible with both the existing and planned use of adjacent land’. And again, if this one field is left open to development, I don’t doubt it would very sadly open the way for further field development in Fairlight in line with the statement above about adjacent land. The remaining countryside in Fairlight needs to be protected from light and noise pollution, and the irreversible destruction of wildlife habitat. Wildlife doesn’t understand ‘wildlife corridors’ when they have roamed an area for generations.

Pages 298, 300 and 305 of the Local Plan talk about alterations to existing buildings and to outbuildings. That they do not unreasonably harm adjoining properties in terms of light, massing or overlooking. That they conserve landscape character and the qualities do not suburbanise sensitive countryside. And in relation to garden extensions, that they should conserve the intrinsic value and locally distinctive character of the countryside, and conditions be attached to mitigate visual impacts. Whilst these sections are not referring to new builds, the inference should surely be the same.

The Market Garden development in Fairlight is not the subject of my email, but I am saddened that the Local Plan appears to have been ignored, which I’m sure concerns every resident when further new builds are rumoured. The houses in Market Garden do harm the amenities of the adjoining properties, including loss of light and privacy and having an overbearing presence and intrusion on the houses in Lower Waites Lane. The landscape character has not been preserved. Trees and hedgerows have been lost along with wildlife habitat. Noise pollution will be the next issue as the new houses become occupied. I very much feel for the residents in Lower Waites Lane in particular.

With ‘health and well being’ part of the Local Plan, the Market Garden development has not considered the health and well being of existing residents, and I plead that Wakehams Pond Field please be removed from the Local Plan, as development will not only affect those living nearby, but also those whose sewers have already backed up, and those affected by flooding and pollution further down the coast in Pett Level.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

This year with all the rainfall we’ve had, our sewers in Shepherds Way backed up, plus our garden was like a pond, which appears may be the new normal with global warming. Wetter winters, (and drier summers, maybe). If planning decisions are meant to mitigate and adapt to climate emergency and be resilient to future changing climate, then Wakehams Pond Field should not be built on and definitely be taken off the Local Plan in line with the ‘Green to the Core’ priority.

If Wakehams Pond Field was allocated for even a small amount of houses, it would of course open the floodgates to further development and a worsening of the current drainage situation in Fairlight.

A development on Wakehams Pond Field wouldn’t be part of the Fairlight community. It would be totally detached from it being ‘down the road’. Residents without a car would be disadvantaged. It certainly wouldn’t fit in with the ‘Live Well Locally’ priority. And it wouldn’t knit into the existing fabric of Fairlight’s settlement either.

A development would ruin the outlook for existing homes in Pett Road, Waites Lane and Broadway - It would not respect the locality and it would distract from the character and appearance of it. ‘It is not compatible with both the existing and planned use of adjacent land’. And again, if this one field is left open to development, I don’t doubt it would very sadly open the way for further field development in Fairlight in line with the statement above about adjacent land. The remaining countryside in Fairlight needs to be protected from light and noise pollution, and the irreversible destruction of wildlife habitat. Wildlife doesn’t understand ‘wildlife corridors’ when they have roamed an area for generations.

Pages 298, 300 and 305 of the Local Plan talk about alterations to existing buildings and to outbuildings. That they do not unreasonably harm adjoining properties in terms of light, massing or overlooking. That they conserve landscape character and the qualities do not suburbanise sensitive countryside. And in relation to garden extensions, that they should conserve the intrinsic value and locally distinctive character of the countryside, and conditions be attached to mitigate visual impacts. Whilst these sections are not referring to new builds, the inference should surely be the same.

The Market Garden development in Fairlight is not the subject of my email, but I am saddened that the Local Plan appears to have been ignored, which I’m sure concerns every resident when further new builds are rumoured. The houses in Market Garden do harm the amenities of the adjoining properties, including loss of light and privacy and having an overbearing presence and intrusion on the houses in Lower Waites Lane. The landscape character has not been preserved. Trees and hedgerows have been lost along with wildlife habitat. Noise pollution will be the next issue as the new houses become occupied. I very much feel for the residents in Lower Waites Lane in particular.

With ‘health and well being’ part of the Local Plan, the Market Garden development has not considered the health and well being of existing residents, and I plead that Wakehams Pond Field please be removed from the Local Plan, as development will not only affect those living nearby, but also those whose sewers have already backed up, and those affected by flooding and pollution further down the coast in Pett Level.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

This year with all the rainfall we’ve had, our sewers in Shepherds Way backed up, plus our garden was like a pond, which appears may be the new normal with global warming. Wetter winters, (and drier summers, maybe). If planning decisions are meant to mitigate and adapt to climate emergency and be resilient to future changing climate, then Wakehams Pond Field should not be built on and definitely be taken off the Local Plan in line with the ‘Green to the Core’ priority.

If Wakehams Pond Field was allocated for even a small amount of houses, it would of course open the floodgates to further development and a worsening of the current drainage situation in Fairlight.

A development on Wakehams Pond Field wouldn’t be part of the Fairlight community. It would be totally detached from it being ‘down the road’. Residents without a car would be disadvantaged. It certainly wouldn’t fit in with the ‘Live Well Locally’ priority. And it wouldn’t knit into the existing fabric of Fairlight’s settlement either.

A development would ruin the outlook for existing homes in Pett Road, Waites Lane and Broadway - It would not respect the locality and it would distract from the character and appearance of it. ‘It is not compatible with both the existing and planned use of adjacent land’. And again, if this one field is left open to development, I don’t doubt it would very sadly open the way for further field development in Fairlight in line with the statement above about adjacent land. The remaining countryside in Fairlight needs to be protected from light and noise pollution, and the irreversible destruction of wildlife habitat. Wildlife doesn’t understand ‘wildlife corridors’ when they have roamed an area for generations.

Pages 298, 300 and 305 of the Local Plan talk about alterations to existing buildings and to outbuildings. That they do not unreasonably harm adjoining properties in terms of light, massing or overlooking. That they conserve landscape character and the qualities do not suburbanise sensitive countryside. And in relation to garden extensions, that they should conserve the intrinsic value and locally distinctive character of the countryside, and conditions be attached to mitigate visual impacts. Whilst these sections are not referring to new builds, the inference should surely be the same.

The Market Garden development in Fairlight is not the subject of my email, but I am saddened that the Local Plan appears to have been ignored, which I’m sure concerns every resident when further new builds are rumoured. The houses in Market Garden do harm the amenities of the adjoining properties, including loss of light and privacy and having an overbearing presence and intrusion on the houses in Lower Waites Lane. The landscape character has not been preserved. Trees and hedgerows have been lost along with wildlife habitat. Noise pollution will be the next issue as the new houses become occupied. I very much feel for the residents in Lower Waites Lane in particular.

With ‘health and well being’ part of the Local Plan, the Market Garden development has not considered the health and well being of existing residents, and I plead that Wakehams Pond Field please be removed from the Local Plan, as development will not only affect those living nearby, but also those whose sewers have already backed up, and those affected by flooding and pollution further down the coast in Pett Level.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

This year with all the rainfall we’ve had, our sewers in Shepherds Way backed up, plus our garden was like a pond, which appears may be the new normal with global warming. Wetter winters, (and drier summers, maybe). If planning decisions are meant to mitigate and adapt to climate emergency and be resilient to future changing climate, then Wakehams Pond Field should not be built on and definitely be taken off the Local Plan in line with the ‘Green to the Core’ priority.

If Wakehams Pond Field was allocated for even a small amount of houses, it would of course open the floodgates to further development and a worsening of the current drainage situation in Fairlight.

A development on Wakehams Pond Field wouldn’t be part of the Fairlight community. It would be totally detached from it being ‘down the road’. Residents without a car would be disadvantaged. It certainly wouldn’t fit in with the ‘Live Well Locally’ priority. And it wouldn’t knit into the existing fabric of Fairlight’s settlement either.

A development would ruin the outlook for existing homes in Pett Road, Waites Lane and Broadway - It would not respect the locality and it would distract from the character and appearance of it. ‘It is not compatible with both the existing and planned use of adjacent land’. And again, if this one field is left open to development, I don’t doubt it would very sadly open the way for further field development in Fairlight in line with the statement above about adjacent land. The remaining countryside in Fairlight needs to be protected from light and noise pollution, and the irreversible destruction of wildlife habitat. Wildlife doesn’t understand ‘wildlife corridors’ when they have roamed an area for generations.

Pages 298, 300 and 305 of the Local Plan talk about alterations to existing buildings and to outbuildings. That they do not unreasonably harm adjoining properties in terms of light, massing or overlooking. That they conserve landscape character and the qualities do not suburbanise sensitive countryside. And in relation to garden extensions, that they should conserve the intrinsic value and locally distinctive character of the countryside, and conditions be attached to mitigate visual impacts. Whilst these sections are not referring to new builds, the inference should surely be the same.

The Market Garden development in Fairlight is not the subject of my email, but I am saddened that the Local Plan appears to have been ignored, which I’m sure concerns every resident when further new builds are rumoured. The houses in Market Garden do harm the amenities of the adjoining properties, including loss of light and privacy and having an overbearing presence and intrusion on the houses in Lower Waites Lane. The landscape character has not been preserved. Trees and hedgerows have been lost along with wildlife habitat. Noise pollution will be the next issue as the new houses become occupied. I very much feel for the residents in Lower Waites Lane in particular.

With ‘health and well being’ part of the Local Plan, the Market Garden development has not considered the health and well being of existing residents, and I plead that Wakehams Pond Field please be removed from the Local Plan, as development will not only affect those living nearby, but also those whose sewers have already backed up, and those affected by flooding and pollution further down the coast in Pett Level.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new Local Plan.

This year with all the rainfall we’ve had, our sewers in Shepherds Way backed up, plus our garden was like a pond, which appears may be the new normal with global warming. Wetter winters, (and drier summers, maybe). If planning decisions are meant to mitigate and adapt to climate emergency and be resilient to future changing climate, then Wakehams Pond Field should not be built on and definitely be taken off the Local Plan in line with the ‘Green to the Core’ priority.

If Wakehams Pond Field was allocated for even a small amount of houses, it would of course open the floodgates to further development and a worsening of the current drainage situation in Fairlight.

A development on Wakehams Pond Field wouldn’t be part of the Fairlight community. It would be totally detached from it being ‘down the road’. Residents without a car would be disadvantaged. It certainly wouldn’t fit in with the ‘Live Well Locally’ priority. And it wouldn’t knit into the existing fabric of Fairlight’s settlement either.

A development would ruin the outlook for existing homes in Pett Road, Waites Lane and Broadway - It would not respect the locality and it would distract from the character and appearance of it. ‘It is not compatible with both the existing and planned use of adjacent land’. And again, if this one field is left open to development, I don’t doubt it would very sadly open the way for further field development in Fairlight in line with the statement above about adjacent land. The remaining countryside in Fairlight needs to be protected from light and noise pollution, and the irreversible destruction of wildlife habitat. Wildlife doesn’t understand ‘wildlife corridors’ when they have roamed an area for generations.

Pages 298, 300 and 305 of the Local Plan talk about alterations to existing buildings and to outbuildings. That they do not unreasonably harm adjoining properties in terms of light, massing or overlooking. That they conserve landscape character and the qualities do not suburbanise sensitive countryside. And in relation to garden extensions, that they should conserve the intrinsic value and locally distinctive character of the countryside, and conditions be attached to mitigate visual impacts. Whilst these sections are not referring to new builds, the inference should surely be the same.

The Market Garden development in Fairlight is not the subject of my email, but I am saddened that the Local Plan appears to have been ignored, which I’m sure concerns every resident when further new builds are rumoured. The houses in Market Garden do harm the amenities of the adjoining properties, including loss of light and privacy and having an overbearing presence and intrusion on the houses in Lower Waites Lane. The landscape character has not been preserved. Trees and hedgerows have been lost along with wildlife habitat. Noise pollution will be the next issue as the new houses become occupied. I very much feel for the residents in Lower Waites Lane in particular.

With ‘health and well being’ part of the Local Plan, the Market Garden development has not considered the health and well being of existing residents, and I plead that Wakehams Pond Field please be removed from the Local Plan, as development will not only affect those living nearby, but also those whose sewers have already backed up, and those affected by flooding and pollution further down the coast in Pett Level.

I support the findings of the appeals inspector on Wakeham’s pond field, in respect of flooding, sewage and destruction of wildlife.

I support the 2022 Appeal Inspector’s findings on Wakeham’s Pond Field re: the risk of groundwater flooding is too high and that extra houses would make sewage pollution matters worse and I call for Wakeham’s Pond Field to be de-allocated in the new local plan.