Please see attached:

- Draft Local Plan Representations
- Site Location Plan
- Existing Site Layout Plan
- Call for Sites Illustrative Layout Plan

Where exactly does Burwash Common have housing potential for +9? I live there, and several new housing developments have been added along the A265, increasing traffic, with no additional infrastructure provisions. There is no more room. And it is absurd to think BC has an employment potential of +500!! Is your goal to destroy the rural peace and charm of this tiny settlement?

Comments added at relevant points of document.
Too many houses in the village of Robertsbridge which should be distributed between other villages and larger settlements that have better amenities requiring less carbon footprint overall.

Your figures for Robertsbridge are incorrect. You have not included the figures for the approved application for the site behind Culverwells agreed prior to the production of the neighbourhood plan. Almost 200 new houses came out of that plan including the site mentioned above and now Robertsbridge is being hammered again to provide the most housing. By comparison, Battle is down to provide 485 and Rye only 200. Both of these are towns, so why is a village such as Robertsbridge being asked to contribute 305? Other villages such as Etchingham or Ticehurst could take more and ease the burden. Etchingham is mentioned as good sustainability, but is only to contribute 16. There is no logic to this distribution.

We believe that the suggested identified distribution lacks the overarching needs for the wider district. Sites for housing delivery where they are in a sustainable settlement in terms of services should be increased.
Robertsbridge seems to have a disproportionate number of homes allocated for a smaller settlement than Ticehurst.
We believe that a more sustainable way to deliver housing would be to even the spread of development across the northern villages. The over delivery of housing in one village and being over-reliant on that village to meet the development aims of the district can lead to a disproportionate and

Please see attached representation.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

See attached document

Full submission attached

See attached.

See attachments for full submission comprising:
- Homes England - Draft Reps R18 plan and Hodson's Mill Robertsbridge (which also contains Appendices A and B);
- Appendix C - Landscape Statement; and
- Appendix D - Site Boundary

The submission contains general comments on the Local Plan and HELAA sites SAL0003 and SAL0024, as well as answers to specific questions as set out in the Local Plan.

Please see attached representation from Bell Cornwell on behalf of the Trustees of Steellands Farm, in relation to HELAA sites TIC0043 and TIC0044 which contains an indicative layout plan.

Mountfield Parish Council (MPC) is of the view that there is little of concern within the Draft Rother District Local Plan.
MPC notes that no potential development sites have been identified in the Draft Housing Economic and Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) within the Parish of Mountfield. However, MPC is keen to seen affordable accommodation provided for younger parishioners and households and, consequently, should any potential exception sites become available it would be keen to help facilitate the provision of lower cost and (at least) carbon neutral units of accommodation, subject to them meeting local requirements for tenure, size and housing mix – and designs that complement (rather than harm) the High Weald National Landscape.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is little prospect of new build residential development within Mountfield in the foreseeable future, MPC does have a concern about such development in surrounding parishes – particularly the larger settlements of Battle (our market town) and Robertsbridge. Any infrastructure deficiencies – for example, if health and medical services cannot meet the demands of rising local populations – are likely to impact Mountfield parishioners adversely.

Therefore, MPC would support a requirement that those applying for consent for developments above a certain number of units of accommodation should provide evidence of engagement with infrastructure providers. Adequate and accessible infrastructure should exist – or be put in place before, or shortly after, developments are completed.
Given that, because of high accommodation costs and poor public transport connectivity, younger parishioners are having to relocate to urban areas (notably Hastings/St Leonards), MPC has an interest in the provision of cheaper accommodation within neighbouring parishes/settlements.

The increasing tendency for developers to assert that 30% affordable housing is unachievable and, in fact, that even one unit of affordable accommodation would render a development unviable should be challenged regularly by Rother District Council (RDC) by way of commissioning independent viability assessments.

Dallington Parish Council (DPC) is of the view that there is little of concern within the Draft Rother District Local Plan.

DPC notes that no potential development sites have been identified in the Draft Housing Economic and Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) within the Parish of Dallington. However, DPC is keen to seen affordable accommodation provided for younger parishioners and households and, consequently, should any potential exception sites become available it would be keen to help facilitate the provision of lower cost and (at least) carbon neutral units of accommodation, subject to them meeting local requirements for tenure, size and housing mix – and designs that complement (rather than harm) the High Weald National Landscape.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is little prospect of new build residential development within Dallington in the foreseeable future, DPC does have a concern about such development in surrounding parishes – particularly the larger settlements of Battle (our market town) and Robertsbridge. Any infrastructure deficiencies – for example, if health and medical services cannot meet the demands of rising local populations – are likely to impact Dallington parishioners adversely.

Therefore, DPC would support a requirement that those applying for consent for developments above a certain number of units of accommodation should provide evidence of engagement with infrastructure providers. Adequate and accessible infrastructure should exist – or be put in place before, or shortly after, developments are completed.

Given that, because of high accommodation costs and poor public transport connectivity, younger parishioners are having to relocate to urban areas (notably Hastings/St Leonards), DPC has an interest in the provision of cheaper accommodation within neighbouring parishes/settlements.

The increasing tendency for developers to assert that 30% affordable housing is unachievable and, in fact, that even one unit of affordable accommodation would render a development unviable should be challenged regularly by Rother District Council (RDC) by way of commissioning independent viability assessments.

`My General comments on the plan are:
• Hard to read/follow plan: The document is not easy to use and is difficult to follow and at over 450 pages in length, is far too long and the important points can easily be overlooked.
• Does not conform to national government policy: Most of the land under RDC’s purview is green-belt, most of which, should have not be considered for either housing or traveller site development. The reasons being because of environmental reasons and the absence of the required adequate infrastructure and services provision
• Need for clear green-belt division between villages being ignored: In particular between the villages of Flimwell and Ticehurst.
I would like to also make the following Points/objections specifically relating to the unsuitability of the field referred to in the Local Plan specified as GYP0002 (on slide 10, “Identifying Sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople”) and TIC0039 (on p66, HELAA-Part 2- CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-Compressed document), respectively.

• The field (TIC0039) has already been prevously been marked as unsuitable for a housing development , please see document; HELAA-PART 2-CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-COMPRESSED and therefore should not now be considered suitable for a traveller’s site encampment (GYP0002) for the reasons given in that judgment by RDC but I would also like to raise the following additional points:
• The land, as well as the ancient woodland that surrounds it, is home to home to many speices of native wildlife and rare plants. The area is currently home to barn owls, kestrels, woodpeckers, falcons, buzzards and other wild birds and also some small animals such as shrews and hedgehogs.

• The field is prone to flooding and becomes very waterlogged and boggy at the bottom, every winter.

• The field is at a steep incline.
  The access points to the field would be dangerous, as it joins a 40mph road that is situated on a corner, on a hill, and would be dangerous not  only for those emerging from the site but also to existing road users.
• The private road that provides access to Ketley Wood Lodge is too narrow to sustain large traveller vehicles.

• There is a lack of basic amenities to support a travelling community in Flimwell. Apart from the artisan smokery shop and an ice parlor, there are no food shops within a mile radis. There is also no Doctor’s surgeries, dentists, chemists, post offices and garages for fuel in Flimwell. And with no footpaths, the only way to access these services safely is via car as also public transport services are at a minimal in the area. A primary school is also only assesable via road in the same manor.
•          It is in an area that is mimalising light pollution with litte or no street lighting
• Difficult/impossible to safeguard the protection of the ancient woodland from, pollution, fires and general damage and this would have a catastrophic effect upon resident wildlife.

I understand and empathise that accommodation has to be made for new housing and traveller sites in Rother, but please focus on the brown field areas first where the infrustraure is in place and only consider areas of green belt in case of urgent need.

I live in Burwash and am writing to you today as I wish to express some comments on the above.

I am fully aware of housing difficulties but South East Water who have a borehole near here have told me that concreting over rural land is making the flooding and run off for excess water and sewage worse, NOT better.

Have you spoken to them about these secondary problems that excess building causes?

Have you spoken to them about how beneficial open land is to the environment at absorbing the excess rainfall we are starting to get from global warming?

Do you realise that you at Rother will then be contributing to, and you will be liable for this flooding and the dumping of more raw sewage into the sea along the Bexhill coast?

Development around towns such as Bexhill (which has better sewage capacity) would be better suited for new housing as the sewage system is more robust.

Whoever was given the job of writing this information has made it very hard for the normal decent local resident to understand.

Please advise, was this partly or totally written by AI?

The schools in our area are currently very good and have extremely hard working members of staff.

Please confirm that you will, at Rother Council, guarantee that additional classrooms and teachers be available and be put in place prior to the new housing to ensure continuity of this fine service?

I look forward to hearing from you with answers to my questions,

See attached documents which comprise the submission regarding HELAA sites EWH0009: Land east of Hop Gardens, Northiam Road, Staplecross and EWH0018: Land south of Watts Wood, Staplecross.

See attached representation which responds to:
- Certain questions within the Local Plan; and
- HELAA site Land at Grove Farm (Phase 2), Robertsbridge. This includes three appendices within the attached document.

We welcome most of the draft Local Plan, although there are points of particular concern for us which we describe below.

For clarity, as there are two different versions of the Local Plan draft in circulation, the text and page numbers mentioned below relate to the ‘Cabinet version” of the Local Plan found at:

https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s9244/Appendix%20A%20-%20Rother%20Local%20Plan%202020-2040%20-%20Draft%20Regulation%2018%20Version.pdf

- Housing allocation for Hurst Green (p.148)

Unless and until the village is bypassed from the A21, we feel we should not be the subject of any more major housing developments (i.e. of more than five houses) because of the exceptionally heavy traffic we experience. For substantial parts of the day there are lorries and cars passing continuously through Hurst Green, one approximately every two seconds. That means high levels of pollution and noise; it means anyone turning into London Road often has a long wait and dangerous exit; or if they are turning from London Road into their driveway they cause significant traffic to build up behind them. All this is set to worsen when the 26 new houses at London Road West (RR/2021/2798/P) are ready. Ditto the 20 houses being built at Foundry Close (RR/2019/2194/P) and if the 28 houses proposed at London Road East (RR/2022/1526/P) are built.

New village housing should above all take account of the nature of the village. Quotas and allocations should not be made on a population basis. They should be made where the landscape, the roads and townscape make development sensible, convenient and sustainable. New village housing is only appropriate where there is walkable access to a GP or chemist (we have neither), where children living in the new houses can be walked to school on adequate pavements (ours are narrow and unsuitable for families), where the roads are relatively safe and where lorries are not always thundering past, where the village has an obvious and thriving central core and hub, where good quality shops and restaurants can be walked to, where if you’re in a car to shop or dine out on the main street you can park. There are lots of villages in East Sussex that fit this bill. Until it is bypassed Hurst Green cannot be one of them.

- Construction waste being dumped on farmland for profit (pp.39-40).

Building-waste dumping is a significant problem around the villages in the north of Rother because it is lucrative for the farmers and landowners who allow builders to do it. If Rother’s planning permission rules were changed so that new buildings could not be occupied until planners were content that waste had been disposed of correctly it would discourage landowners from allowing these waste dumping trucks onto their land. We think there is scope under the 2012 (no. 767) Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations for Rother to add such planning conditions to its ‘development management policy’ under section 5, para 1 (a) (iv) of the Regulations.

- Solar panels on roofs

The Local Plan says (p.47) ‘Proposals for roof-mounted solar energy supply infrastructure will be supported and encouraged wherever possible, subject to other policies and Policy HER1 (Heritage Management)”. Policy HER1 is an admirable policy designed to protect heritage assets but it is vague and subjective. We think that the Local Plan should oppose solar panels being added to a visible roof on any listed building in the High Weald National Landscape, because they tend to compromise the character and appearance of historic buildings. We think the same should be true of any Victorian or Edwardian building within a conservation area within the HWNL (such as in central Robertsbridge or Burwash). We also think there is a case for requiring planning permission for mounting solar roof panels on a non-listed building if it is adjacent to a listed building.

- Design of new buildings

Page 80 of the Local Plan says that new development should be visually attractive, understand and respond positively to local landscape and townscape character and should “conserve, enhance, and draw inspiration from this context and character in either a traditional or contemporary style”. We do not feel this is clear or strong enough guidance for developers. We would like to see the Plan say proposed developments in the High Weald National Landscape will be refused planning permission unless they can demonstrate they have followed the High Weald Housing Design Guide. Developers should be required to identify local design features that characterise the village or landscape they are building in and show how they will adopt these features. We would also like to see the Local Plan say that in the HWNL ‘contemporary style’ buildings would only be permitted where of truly exceptional quality and where a traditional style would be manifestly unsuitable.

- Wind farms

On page 45 the Local Plan’s policy wording says that wind farms will be supported if ‘they will not result in significant adverse impacts on landscape character that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, including the High Weald National Landscape; trees, woodland and hedgerows; agricultural land use and local heritage.” The explanatory text on p.46 says “The opportunity for the development of wind turbines within the district, is extremely limited and is not appropriate in, or within the setting of, the High Weald National Landscape.”

We would like to see this language toughened and made clearer. There can be no satisfactory mitigation of a 300ft high wind turbine in our exceptional landscape. We would like to see the policy wording rewritten as “Wind farms will not be permitted in, or adjacent to, the High Weald National Landscape because they undermine its outstanding natural beauty and historic character.”

- Solar Farms

Pages 45 and 46 of the Local Plan say that “Stand-alone ground mounted solar installations will be supported, subject to other policies, on previously developed land or where evidence of community support can be demonstrated….. Stand-alone ground mounted solar installation opportunities are limited within the district, however a policy that supports suitable schemes in appropriate sustainable locations, with community support is necessary.”

We do not share the view that there are any opportunities for solar farms in the High Weald National Landscape that would not cause visual damage to the landscape and surrounding heritage assets so we would like them ruled out altogether in the HWNL.