Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24951
Received: 02/07/2024
Respondent: Peter Rixon
Contesting sites:
GYP0003/GYP0002
TIC0043/TIC0044/TIC0008/TIC0027
The areas are in the National Landscape.
The development of all these sites will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife, biodiversity and habitats, including documented proof that there are rare birds (some on the red list) and rare bats, and oak trees of nearly 500yrs old, potentially causing irreversible damage. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify these sites.
There would be a huge impact on the listed buildings and protected lands in the area.
It will unsettle the local community. Infrastructure and services are at capacity and struggling. They cannot support such developments.
The roads are also not adequately prepared for even more congestion. Impact of emissions. Huge safety concerns.
These applications are causing distress to an already settled community which goes against the Council’s obligations.
There are inadequate facilities or public transport to accommodate more buildings in the area or Traveller sites.
CONTESTING THE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING-
GYP0003/GYP0002
TIC0043/TIC0044/TIC0008/TIC0027
After reading the proposed housing development and traveler sites of the above reference numbers I would like to object to all of the proposed plans for the following reasons.
• Reasons to object applications
- The areas are in the National landscape. This area needs to be protected in its Area of outstanding natural beauty. This is the reason people originally brought their properties in this area because they respect the environment around and would like to maintain it.
- This plan will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife, biodiversity and habitats of so many plants and animals. This will then mean that there would be a rapid decline in the wildlife and landscape that needs protecting so greatly. Also from a medical view point the destroying of the land and natural habitats and building up the area will potentially cause more pollution and problems for our ecosystem and the health of the residence.
- There would also be a huge impact on the listed buildings and protected lands in the area. There has been other housing development applications dismissed for this very reason. Please refer to the Seacox Cockers site (now being called the Hollies) as this has already been inspected and dismissed.
- A hugely important factor in not allowing these applications is also how it will unsettle the local community. The infrastructure is not here to support such developments. The doctors surgeries, dentists and schools in the area are already at full capacity and struggling hugely with the people that are already here. At the moment the waiting time for a Doctor’s appointment is weeks and surgeries cannot add more people to this already failing system. Therefore, adding more pressure to the community will only further strain resources and make the lives of locals that much harder than it is already.
The roads are also not adequately prepared for even more congestion. The traffic lights at Flimwell are already under pressure from sheer volume of vehicles and the smaller roads become completely congested most of the time already. The impact of the CO2 and emissions on the surrounding area would have an impact on residence and the land/wildlife potentially causing health concerns and damage. Unless the council is planning to rectify all these issues first then there is not the sustainability or the infrastructure to make this work without causing huge disruption and problems for the local community already. I would advise that the traffic situation is looked at especially at peak times and the already long wait times to get around the local area and this will only become so much worse with more vehicles added to the roads and land.
The area has oak trees of nearly 500 years old and many animal habitats will be affected by all of these sites, especially a traveler sites which would potentially cause irreversible damage. Who is going to clear the traveler site once people have moved on? What would happen to the rubbish and waste and the safety concerns around the area and the impact this would have. This could cause contamination of so many natural habitats. There is no exceptional circumstances why these sites need to be there so therefore it is unjustified.
These applications are causing nothing but distress to an already settled community and the council has an obligation to the residence to ensure that they are doing what is best for the settled community. If these applications go ahead then that will not be for the best interest of anyone already living in the local area.
There are not adequate facilities or public transport to accommodate more buildings in the area or traveller sites. There is a bus that runs through once an hour which is certain times is already full (I use this myself) and the school times are incredibly busy. Unless the council is planning to expand the public transport in the area then it will not be able to keep up with the potential pressures that more people will cause. This in turn will then mean more people will drive and this will cause a higher level of pollution in the community and have the knock on effect of causing harm to the residence and the wildlife/natural habitats.
There is documented proof that there are rare birds (some on the red list) residing in these areas and also there are rare bats nesting in the woodlands and across the pastures due for the sites and developments which need to be protected. A full survey will show that these sites cannot be touched for those reasons alone as it will be endangering the natural habitats of many species of animals/birds/plants. This cannot be justified by the council.
The biodiversity is very important in this area of outstanding natural beauty and the community has worked hard to support all wildlife and natural regeneration. These proposed sites would have a detrimental effect on the progress that has been made.
In conclusion the area of Flimwell under the proposed site references above is just not appropriate and I firmly oppose the applications. The local, schools, doctors, roads and other infrastructure is no there to support more buildings and sites. Also, the natural habitats of so many animals, plants and trees will be destroyed. These applications are a great source of uncertainty, anxiety and trepidation of a local community that is supportive of our surroundings and live here for the purpose of keeping it the way it is and to preserve the Area of Natural Beauty that we are lucky enough to live in. There is a huge safety concern also for us. Because of all the extra traffic, vehicles and people that will be in an area that cannot sustain it. The land all around Flimwell is used daily for so many people for walking, conservation of the environment and so much more that if this was taken away it would devalue the area greatly.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24967
Received: 03/07/2024
Respondent: Rebecca Knight
Contesting sites:
GYP0003/GYP0002
TIC0043/TIC0044/TIC0008/TIC0027
The areas are in the National Landscape.
The development of all these sites will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife, biodiversity and habitats, including documented proof that there are rare birds (some on the red list) and rare bats, and oak trees of nearly 500yrs old, potentially causing irreversible damage. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify these sites.
There would be a huge impact on the listed buildings and protected lands in the area.
It will unsettle the local community. Infrastructure and services are at capacity and struggling. They cannot support such developments.
The roads are also not adequately prepared for even more congestion. Impact of emissions. Huge safety concerns.
These applications are causing distress to an already settled community which goes against the Council’s obligations.
There are inadequate facilities or public transport to accommodate more buildings in the area or Traveller sites.
CONTESTING THE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING-
GYP0003/GYP0002
TIC0043/TIC0044/TIC0008/TIC0027
After reading the proposed housing development and traveler sites of the above reference numbers I would like to object to all of the proposed plans for the following reasons.
• Reasons to object applications
- The areas are in the National landscape. This area needs to be protected in its Area of outstanding natural beauty. This is the reason people originally brought their properties in this area because they respect the environment around and would like to maintain it.
- This plan will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife, biodiversity and habitats of so many plants and animals. This will then mean that there would be a rapid decline in the wildlife and landscape that needs protecting so greatly. Also from a medical view point the destroying of the land and natural habitats and building up the area will potentially cause more pollution and problems for our ecosystem and the health of the residence.
- There would also be a huge impact on the listed buildings and protected lands in the area. There has been other housing development applications dismissed for this very reason. Please refer to the Seacox Cockers site (now being called the Hollies) as this has already been inspected and dismissed.
- A hugely important factor in not allowing these applications is also how it will unsettle the local community. The infrastructure is not here to support such developments. The doctors surgeries, dentists and schools in the area are already at full capacity and struggling hugely with the people that are already here. At the moment the waiting time for a Doctor’s appointment is weeks and surgeries cannot add more people to this already failing system. Therefore, adding more pressure to the community will only further strain resources and make the lives of locals that much harder than it is already.
The roads are also not adequately prepared for even more congestion. The traffic lights at Flimwell are already under pressure from sheer volume of vehicles and the smaller roads become completely congested most of the time already. The impact of the CO2 and emissions on the surrounding area would have an impact on residence and the land/wildlife potentially causing health concerns and damage. Unless the council is planning to rectify all these issues first then there is not the sustainability or the infrastructure to make this work without causing huge disruption and problems for the local community already. I would advise that the traffic situation is looked at especially at peak times and the already long wait times to get around the local area and this will only become so much worse with more vehicles added to the roads and land.
The area has oak trees of nearly 500 years old and many animal habitats will be affected by all of these sites, especially a traveler sites which would potentially cause irreversible damage. Who is going to clear the traveler site once people have moved on? What would happen to the rubbish and waste and the safety concerns around the area and the impact this would have. This could cause contamination of so many natural habitats. There is no exceptional circumstances why these sites need to be there so therefore it is unjustified.
These applications are causing nothing but distress to an already settled community and the council has an obligation to the residence to ensure that they are doing what is best for the settled community. If these applications go ahead then that will not be for the best interest of anyone already living in the local area.
There are not adequate facilities or public transport to accommodate more buildings in the area or traveller sites. There is a bus that runs through once an hour which is certain times is already full (I use this myself) and the school times are incredibly busy. Unless the council is planning to expand the public transport in the area then it will not be able to keep up with the potential pressures that more people will cause. This in turn will then mean more people will drive and this will cause a higher level of pollution in the community and have the knock on effect of causing harm to the residence and the wildlife/natural habitats.
There is documented proof that there are rare birds (some on the red list) residing in these areas and also there are rare bats nesting in the woodlands and across the pastures due for the sites and developments which need to be protected. A full survey will show that these sites cannot be touched for those reasons alone as it will be endangering the natural habitats of many species of animals/birds/plants. This cannot be justified by the council.
The biodiversity is very important in this area of outstanding natural beauty and the community has worked hard to support all wildlife and natural regeneration. These proposed sites would have a detrimental effect on the progress that has been made.
In conclusion the area of Flimwell under the proposed site references above is just not appropriate and I firmly oppose the applications. The local, schools, doctors, roads and other infrastructure is no there to support more buildings and sites. Also, the natural habitats of so many animals, plants and trees will be destroyed. These applications are a great source of uncertainty, anxiety and trepidation of a local community that is supportive of our surroundings and live here for the purpose of keeping it the way it is and to preserve the Area of Natural Beauty that we are lucky enough to live in. There is a huge safety concern also for us. Because of all the extra traffic, vehicles and people that will be in an area that cannot sustain it. The land all around Flimwell is used daily for so many people for walking, conservation of the environment and so much more that if this was taken away it would devalue the area greatly.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25297
Received: 12/07/2024
Respondent: Whitehall Homes LLP
Agent: DHA Planning
Please see attached representation regarding SAL0001, SAL0028 and SAL0029.
Please see attached representation regarding SAL0001, SAL0028 and SAL0029.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25421
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Denbigh Properties Ltd
Agent: DHA Planning
Please see attached:
- Draft Local Plan Representations
- Site Location Plan
- Existing Site Layout Plan
- Call for Sites Illustrative Layout Plan
Please see attached:
- Draft Local Plan Representations
- Site Location Plan
- Existing Site Layout Plan
- Call for Sites Illustrative Layout Plan
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25491
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Rubicon Associates Ltd (RAL)
Agent: Strutt & Parker
Please see attached representations
Please see attached representations
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25506
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Nina Winder
Please see full response
There is a planning application for houses to be built-in a field behind Heathfield Gardens Robertsbridge.
I am raising a concern for our wildlife in this area, we have a good variety and some are protected, and we are asked to look after these protected animals, yet when it comes to building new houses, all of a sudden, they are forgotten. If we keep doing this, then all the animals and bird we grew up with, won't be there for the next generations, and once they are dead you can't bring them back.
Choosing field surround by trees, where these creatures live is not the right option. The country side is there home and they can't speak up for themselves.
There are so many open fields along the A21, with better road access, where you could build new villages, instead of trying to make our village in to a town.
Our Dr's surgery, post office, one stop and school, can't cope with the people already living here. Tell me are you going to provide these important factors, when you build 100s of new houses.
Tell me what's going to happen to my Owls, red kites, kestrels, sparrowhawks, field mice, lizards, and my list could go on.
I know we need housing, but your not thinking of the big picture. You have got to leave some areas in these small villages and build new villages instead, otherwise England, won't be the green land we are so proud of, it will end up looking like a concrete jungle.
Even our Capital City London has places left for wild life and citizens to enjoy
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25777
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Sue Lomas Bullivant
You cannot be serious about considering the above development.
It is in the AONB and is adjacent to Wardsdown Ancient Woodlands.
Due to the lie of the land, any building/extra roads will create water runoff that will have a very negative effect on the woods. These woods have 400/500 year old oak trees and are being naturally regenerated with the help of the owners and the Woodland Trust. Rare bats, grass snakes, great crested newts, toads, frogs, fallow, roe and montjac deer all roam the area. No amount of "offsetting" will be able to recreate this unique environment - all of which is steadily being eroded in the UK.
Any access road will lead onto an already overloaded B road and there is no safe public footpath to a school, doctor or shop.
You cannot be serious about considering the above development.
It is in the AONB and is adjacent to Wardsdown Ancient Woodlands.
Due to the lie of the land, any building/extra roads will create water runoff that will have a very negative effect on the woods. These woods have 400/500 year old oak trees and are being naturally regenerated with the help of the owners and the Woodland Trust. Rare bats, grass snakes, great crested newts, toads, frogs, fallow, roe and montjac deer all roam the area. No amount of "offsetting" will be able to recreate this unique environment - all of which is steadily being eroded in the UK.
Any access road will lead onto an already overloaded B road and there is no safe public footpath to a school, doctor or shop.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25800
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Miss Suzie Jones
Please would you note my objection to any development or disturbance to the area you have identified as
SA l 00028/29 On:
This is because of the huge diversity of wild life living within these fields.
The following species have been identified and many photographed by local people;
Dormice
Glow worms
Common lizards
Nightingale
Slow worms
Grass snake
Foxes
Sexton burrowing beetles
Fat legged beetles
Lesser stag beetles
Dragon flies
The following butterflies:
Marbled white, Brown argus, meadow browns, gatekeepers, holly blue, common blue, small copper, comma, skipper, red admirals, peacock, small tortoiseshell, large white, small white, orange tip, green veined, brimstone, ringlet, painted lady, small heath.
And moths: cinnabar,5spotted moth, puss moth.
200 species of wild flowers have been identified in these fields
And there are many mature trees and hedge rows that border these fields.
I would ask you please to consider these fields as a local well being resource (though I do not like the word resource when it applies to living creatures)
Also for the huge contribution this wild life makes to rother in its maintenance and protection of the natural world
Please would you note my objection to any development or disturbance to the area you have identified as
SA l 00028/29 On:
This is because of the huge diversity of wild life living within these fields.
The following species have been identified and many photographed by local people;
Dormice
Glow worms
Common lizards
Nightingale
Slow worms
Grass snake
Foxes
Sexton burrowing beetles
Fat legged beetles
Lesser stag beetles
Dragon flies
The following butterflies:
Marbled white, Brown argus, meadow browns, gatekeepers, holly blue, common blue, small copper, comma, skipper, red admirals, peacock, small tortoiseshell, large white, small white, orange tip, green veined, brimstone, ringlet, painted lady, small heath.
And moths: cinnabar,5spotted moth, puss moth.
200 species of wild flowers have been identified in these fields
And there are many mature trees and hedge rows that border these fields.
I would ask you please to consider these fields as a local well being resource (though I do not like the word resource when it applies to living creatures)
Also for the huge contribution this wild life makes to rother in its maintenance and protection of the natural world
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26000
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Trustees of Steellands Farm
Agent: Mr Geoff Megarity
The views are that the district is in desperate need of housing across its entirety due to the historic under delivery of housing over the course of many years. This has contributed in turn to greater levels of unaffordability in the district and the provision of more housing could directly address this topic.
The sites for which these representations relate are in a highly sustainable settlement and are in a highly sustainable location and hope to be delivered by people with a proven track record of delivering much needed housing in the National Landscape and in the village itself. We appreciate that the National Landscape will need to be protected as it should. However, through careful landscape led design, we believe that these sites can deliver much needed housing in a northern rural settlement.
The views are that the district is in desperate need of housing across its entirety due to the historic under delivery of housing over the course of many years. This has contributed in turn to greater levels of unaffordability in the district and the provision of more housing could directly address this topic.
The sites for which these representations relate are in a highly sustainable settlement and are in a highly sustainable location and hope to be delivered by people with a proven track record of delivering much needed housing in the National Landscape and in the village itself. We appreciate that the National Landscape will need to be protected as it should. However, through careful landscape led design, we believe that these sites can deliver much needed housing in a northern rural settlement.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26069
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Woodland Trust
The Woodland Trust objects to ancient woodland areas being included in sites allocated as suitable for development. Where development sites are adjacent to ancient woodland, we recommend that as a precautionary principle, a minimum 50 metre buffer should be maintained between a development and the ancient woodland.
The Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI) for the area may be incomplete. We therefore recommend an exercise to complete the ATI (which lists ancient, veteran and notable trees outside woods) across any sites allocated or proposed to be allocated for development, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 186c) for the protection of irreplaceable habitats.
The Woodland Trust objects to ancient woodland areas being included in sites allocated as suitable for development. Where development sites are adjacent to ancient woodland, we recommend that as a precautionary principle, a minimum 50 metre buffer should be maintained between a development and the ancient woodland.
The Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI) for the area may be incomplete. We therefore recommend an exercise to complete the ATI (which lists ancient, veteran and notable trees outside woods) across any sites allocated or proposed to be allocated for development, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 186c) for the protection of irreplaceable habitats.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26292
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Parish Council
Some of the sites are not acceptable for development that have been identified in the HELAA.
BUR0019 – Site is a registered ancient hill fort and is registered with the ESCC archaeological society.
BUR0035 – Development of 6. Believe the previous owners submitted the site. Feeling is that if it was submitted as a subdivision of property it could work as a site.
BUR003 – Is not suitable no access, hugely contentious development. This site has already been rejected by planning and should not be considered.
BUR0010 – Potentially suitable if the site comes forward. Concern about the number suggested on the size of the plot.
BUR0031 – Potentially suitable if the site comes forward. Concern about ribbon development, possible backfill and suburbanization.
BUR0032 – Potentially suitable if the site comes forward. Concern about ribbon development, possible backfill and suburbanisation.
Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26293
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Parish Council
BUR0027 – Would be highly contentious, possible problems with access onto the A265. Could be developed if it comes forward with careful management. Concern about it being an extension of the ribbon towards Broad Oak.
Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26294
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Parish Council
BUR0034 – Commercial employment opportunities are overstated. There is no dwelling on the site. Current owner tried for permission to turn a brick barn with a chimney into residential use but it was refused. Area highlighted on the map is not accurate as it includes a neighbouring garage and access driveway that isn’t part of the curtilage. Burnt House Farm is a protected conservation area. Essential that any changes are not visible across the valley. More tarmac would make current flooding worse. The driveway and access road referred to is private and there is a neighbour covenant on the land. Current owner has said they will not allow access for vehicles to the site along the lane. Very dangerous access to A265. Original access to Burnt House Farm has to be moved because of safety concerns. There is buried waste on the site, live enforcement case. Land is now contaminated.
Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26527
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
See response to Q68.
TWBC notes the sites identified in the
HELAA at Flimwell and Robertsbridge as
potential development sites. The
exceptional circumstances for allocating
sites within the High Weald National
Landscape should be clearly
demonstrated and justified. TWBC
would also expect that the cumulative
impact of the potential development
sites, including any in combination
impacts with sites already identified, are
fully considered. As referenced in Q68,
this should include a full assessment of
the impacts on Flimwell Junction.
See attached document
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26542
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association
BUR0005. The former Ashwood Nursing Home site. (Identified site)
2.2 This site is now under development, with 10 new properties on the larger, southern part of the site due to be occupied in the late summer/autumn. The smaller, northern part of the site currently has planning permission (RR/2021/1608/P) for two so-called eco-homes. However, our understanding is that the land on which these two properties were scheduled to be built has been put up for sale by the current owners. It therefore remains to be seen whether this part of the site will be developed in line with the existing planning approval or whether further planning applications will be submitted by any new owners. Any such applications can be judged on their own merits.
2.3 We have been very concerned to see that the part of the site that is being developed has encroached beyond the site boundary on its western side up to the edge of the existing footpath, such that a proportion of the previously existing grass verge has been lost. In addition, existing hedges along this boundary are being removed and replaced by poor quality fencing which is not at all in keeping with the local landscape. The remainder of the grass verge between the footpath and the road (Swing Gate Hill) has been churned to mud by contractors’ vehicles and needs to be reinstated by the contractor once the development is completed. These are all enforcement issues which have been reported but no action appears to have been taken by the relevant authorities.
Full submission attached
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26674
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Maria Matsi
I’m appalled to learn that having just moved away from housing developments to come to this beautiful green space, I’ve possibly jumped into another one. When is the destruction going to end? It’s a small village where no one who appreciates green space wants it to be destroyed and replaced by brick and concrete.
And where’s the infrastructure for all of this? The doctors, the schools, the roads. The main junction in Flimwell is struggling as it is, taking ages to cross in any of the 4 directions. They said they’d put the infrastructure in where I’ve just come from when they started building. They didn’t. And it turned into chaos. It’s still happening now.
Please keep our village small and green. We don’t like grey. We really really love green.
I’m appalled to learn that having just moved away from housing developments to come to this beautiful green space, I’ve possibly jumped into another one. When is the destruction going to end? It’s a small village where no one who appreciates green space wants it to be destroyed and replaced by brick and concrete.
And where’s the infrastructure for all of this? The doctors, the schools, the roads. The main junction in Flimwell is struggling as it is, taking ages to cross in any of the 4 directions. They said they’d put the infrastructure in where I’ve just come from when they started building. They didn’t. And it turned into chaos. It’s still happening now.
Please keep our village small and green. We don’t like grey. We really really love green.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26702
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Devine Homes PLC
Agent: Nexus Planning
Please see attached submission regarding site SAL0012.
Please see attached full submission from Nexus Planning on behalf of their client Devine Homes regarding the Local Plan and HELAA Site SAL0012: Land at Bishops Lane, Robertsbridge
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27126
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Batcheller Monkhouse
Site Specific Considerations
The land lies in a highly sustainable location close to all major services within the village and public transport options, adjacent to the existing envelope of built development. Our client has control over the land submitted to the previous call for sites, the Land at Yew Tree Farm amounts to 6 hectares. The land benefits from two existing accesses off London Road, one directly facing Holy Trinity Church and a second directly opposite Hurst Green Social Club. The HELAA assessment for the site it was stated that access is a constraint to the site although no specific details are given. The HELAA does identify the site as constituting a Priority Habitat consisting of lowland meadow, this does not prevent development on this land as it is not protected to the same degree as other ecological designations. There is a single public right of way crossing the land (HUR/33/1) this PROW could be preserved and enhanced through any subsequent development scheme. On the basis of a capacity of 25-45 dph dwellings per hectare (in accordance with proposed policy LWL1) the site would be capable of accommodating up to 150 dwellings as a minimum, taking account of the plot sizes and the need to set aside areas for biodiversity net gain a lower level of dwellings would be likely to be in the region of 25 dwellings.
See attached.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27218
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Homes England
Agent: Luken Beck
Please see the "Homes England - Draft Reps R18 plan and Hodson's Mill Robertsbridge" attachment, specifically pages 15 to 17
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.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27294
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Trustees of Steellands Farm
Agent: Mr Geoff Megarity
The views are that the district is in desperate need of housing across its entirety due to the historic under delivery of housing over the course of many years. This has contributed in turn to greater levels of unaffordability in the district and the provision of more housing could directly address this topic.
The sites for which these representations relate are in a highly sustainable settlement and are in a highly sustainable location and hope to be delivered by people with a proven track record of delivering much needed housing in the National Landscape and in the village itself. We appreciate that the National Landscape will need to be protected as it should. However, through careful landscape led design, we believe that these sites can deliver much needed housing in a northern rural settlement.
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.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27300
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Trustees of Steellands Farm
Agent: Mr Geoff Megarity
The Trustees of Steellands Farm have previously submitted a parcel of land between Land at Cherry Tree Field, Lower Platts, Ticehurst (ref: TIC0043) and Land at Steellands Farm, Ticehurst (ref: TIC0044) during the Council’s Call for Sites.
The sites have capacity to deliver 26-35 dwellings directly adjacent to the settlement boundary of Ticehurst on a well contained parcel of agricultural land with mature boundary planting.
Submitted with these representations are the following:
• Indicative Layout prepared by Fibonacci Architects drawing number 6104 P60
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.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27476
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Michael Pape
Objection to HELAA site TIC0008:
As stated by Rother Council in the draft plan “This is a broad location containing a number of individual land parcels and adjoining fields on the northern and southern sides of Hawkhurst Road, east of the A21 Trunk Road. It offers the potential for growth on the eastern side of Flimwell, although there are some significant issues which would need to be overcome before its suitability for development can be determined,
However, due to its scale, development at this broad location may constitute “major development” within the High Weald National Landscape (an AONB), which the NPPF resists other than in exceptional circumstances and where the development is in the public interest, and further consideration of this issue is necessary. Furthermore, the position of this broad location on the eastern side of the A21 means it is not well-located in relation to existing services and facilities within Flimwell, which lie on the western side. While there are bus stops and limited facilities within walking distance, the fast stretches of Hawkhurst Road and the A21 do not provide a pleasant walking environment or safe cycling environment, and significant measures to improve this would be necessary as part of any development, together with improvements to crossing facilities on the A21. Achieving safe vehicular accesses to the individual parcels could also be problematic, particularly for those in the western part of the broad location, and the impact on the capacity of the road junction requires further assessment. The advice of National Highways will be required. If development were to be accepted here it would need to include a mixture of residential, employment and community uses to create a sustainable community with much improved links to existing services on the western side of the A21”.
As the National Planning Policy Framework resists developments of this scale within the High Weald National landscape why is even being considered. There are no exceptional circumstances, and it is certainly not in the public interest.
National Planning Policy Framework Directive of 1st May 2024 states “All developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which would be impossible to achieve at this site.
The proposed site does not comply with the Live Well Locally policy LWL2 - Facilities and Services, in that many of the facilities required are not immediately and safely accessible from the site.
Vehicular access is acknowledged as problematic and the impact on the capacity of the road junction with the A21 would be unacceptable. Last year a pedestrian was killed in the section of road between the traffic lights and the Smokery, any increase in vehicle volumes will only increase the danger to pedestrians.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27477
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Michael Pape
Objection to HELAA site TIC0027:
As stated by Rother Council in the draft plan “Locally there are concerns with the potential impacts of development here on the adjoining residents to the south, although these are at a higher ground level so impacts could potentially be mitigated through a careful design and layout. The southern part of this site was an "amber" site in the SHLAA (2013) and it is considered that this section of the site (only) could have potential for limited development, subject to access via the allocated site, a careful design to protect adjoining residents, and protection and enhancement of the wooded area within the northern part of the site”.
As the southern part of this site was classed as Amber in the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (2013) and all plans were discounted surely this sets a precedent for the remaining land.
In addition, National Planning Policy Framework Directive of 1st May 2024 states “All developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which would be impossible to achieve at this site.
This land is in the National Landscape and borders ancient woodland and afforded the highest level of protection under NPPF Section 15 and therefore should not be developed unless there are exceptional circumstances which there do not appear to be.
The woods in question have been proactively managed leading to endangered birds returning and providing habitat to rare bats and other wildlife. Bats, rabbits, deer, birds of prey are regularly seen in and over the land in question.
I also understand as set out in 1.35 of the draft plan, The extent of Ancient Woodland is also significant, covering 16% of the district – the greatest of any district in the South East and is irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance.
The proposed site does not comply with the Live Well Locally policy LWL2 - Facilities and Services, in that many of the facilities required are not immediately and safely accessible from the site.
Access and egress to the site would join the B2087 at Union Street. Despite speed restrictions this is a particularly busy and hazardous stretch of road, and vehicles continually exceed the speed limit. As there a brow of a hill to the west there would be little time to see oncoming vehicles, any increase in vehicle volumes will only increase the danger.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27493
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Alice Barham
Land south-east of Heathfield Gardens: I have a number of concerns: (1) Impact on wildlife, including Owls, red kites, kestrels, sparrow hawks, field mice, lizards, deer. Their homes and the beautiful countryside should not be destroyed when the houses could be built elsewhere in Robertsbridge, for example, the mill site or the farm by the primary school. (2) the poor drainage and flooding caused by the field being on a bank, service water runs from the A21 and down into dwellings/ gardens on Heathfield Gardens. Development here will worsen existing problems. (3) the additional cars and unsafe parking that will result from additional residents, worsening existing problems. (4) Traffic hazards from another junction near the A21. (5) Impact on local services and infrastructure which cannot cope with the current population living in the village. (6) Increase in pollution, affecting those with health conditions. How will the village be improved?
I am writing to you to discuss my concerns about the planning application for houses to be built in the field behind 35 Heathfield Gardens.
I have a few concerns about this application. As a homeowner, I am incredibly worried about the impact this will have on the estate.
My first concern is about the wildlife that lives in that field. I have been very lucky to have grown up on this estate, and with the wildlife that inhabits this field, Many of these animals are protected and deserve to live in an environment where they know they are safe.
We have been asked to look at these animals for many years, but as soon as houses are mentioned, these poor creatives are forgotten about. We currently have the following animals living in this field: Owls, red kites, kestrels, sparrow hawks, field mice, lizards, deer, and more. The current owner also uses it for their sheep. I think it is a shame that we are willing to destroy their homes and the beautiful countryside for houses that would be suitable in other areas of the village, for example, the mill site or the farm by the primary school.
My second concern for this application is the field itself; the field is on a bank, causing me and the other properties a lot of issues with service water running from the A21 and down into the properties. I have had to call Southeast Water and Southern Water about this issue because the heavy rain we have been experiencing over the past few years has led to flooding in the gardens. I have managed to contact the person who owns the field, and they have put a trench in for the water to run in, which has helped with this situation, but surely putting housing on this type of land that can cause flooding puts the houses along this piece of the field at risk and will cause more distressed than it already has. Also, the drains that the estate is currently using will not cope with the added houses. We suffer from blocked drains now. How will adding houses make it better?
My third concern is the unsafe release of cars into an already crowded estate. We have issues with parking due to the number of cars per household now, which leads to unsafe parking due to not having enough parking spaces or due to people's attitudes, which leads to the lucky members having their drives blocked in. Surely, adding more houses to this situation will make it unbearable for the existing resistance.
My fourth concern is the A21. As you know, the A21 is an unsafe road at the best of times. Surely, adding another existing road onto this type of road is an accident waiting to happen.
Our local forces, such as our doctor's surgery, railway, bus services, post office, village shops, and schools, can't cope with the current population already living in the village, and adding more houses to this situation will only make it worse instead of trying to make our lovely little village a town.
Can you please tell me how you are going to improve our village if you build houses in this area? Surely, we would be more beneficial in keeping our landscape for future generations and the environment. As an asthma sufferer, I am sure that adding the number of houses you are currently discussing to this small estate will impact the amount of carbon and pollution back into our atmosphere, which will not only affect myself but also the older population that currently lives there.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27515
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council
See attached submission regarding HELAA sites TIC0008, TIC0027, TIC0038/GYP0003, TIC0039/GYP0002, TIC0043 and TIC0044.
See attached submission regarding HELAA sites TIC0008, TIC0027, TIC0038/GYP0003, TIC0039/GYP0002, TIC0043 and TIC0044.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27542
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Stephen Hardy
See attached representation regarding HELAA sites SAL0012, SAL0017, SAL0022, SAL0024, SAL0026, SAL0028 and SAL0029.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27790
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
In our Parish Site SAL0012 (land off Bishops Lane) is identified as a potential site even though it was rejected by our community as part of the local neighbourhood plan process and this exclusion was accepted by the Government Inspector who reviewed our proposed Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council and residents feel very strongly that it is crucial that our Neighbourhood Plan, overwhelmingly supported by residents in our referendum, should be respected by Rother as an important output of the democratic process.
We also question why Site SAL005 (land off Station Road) is not included as an identified site as it has an approved planning application for a new Health Centre and housing (in the draft plan it is labelled a potential site).
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27870
Received: 15/07/2024
Respondent: Mr P J Halden
Proposed development at site TIC0008
I would confine my comments on this proposal to the fact that development here would preclude the construction of a bypass road (previously proposed) which is required to replace the dangerous cross road on the A21 road.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28008
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Lisa & Chris Beagley
Number of people: 2
Upon reviewing the plan, we are particularly concerned about the proposed development on green-belt land. As recent residents who chose this area for its natural beauty and environmental significance, it is disheartening to see these spaces under threat. The environmental impact, including potential harm to local wildlife, cannot be overstated.
Specifically, we would like to address the sites labelled GYP0002 and TIC0039. TIC0039 has been deemed unsuitable for development, and for good reason. It serves as a habitat for protected species, is prone to flooding due to its topography, and lacks adequate access for both vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, the existing infrastructure is insufficient to support additional development without significant investment. The negative effects on wildlife and the increase in light pollution are also of great concern.
We urge the RDC to prioritize brownfield sites for development within the local plan. This approach would mitigate environmental concerns and preserve the character of our district.
We are writing to express our thoughts on the Rother District Council (RDC) 2020-2040 Local Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the planning process, although we regret that the notification and consultation seemed somewhat limited and hurried. Many residents, including ourselves, were only made aware of the consultation through local word of mouth, and we believe that earlier, more informative sessions would have greatly benefited community understanding and involvement.
Upon reviewing the plan, we are particularly concerned about the proposed development on green-belt land. As recent residents who chose this area for its natural beauty and environmental significance, it is disheartening to see these spaces under threat. The environmental impact, including potential harm to local wildlife, cannot be overstated.
Specifically, we would like to address the sites labelled GYP0002 and TIC0039. TIC0039 has been deemed unsuitable for development, and for good reason. It serves as a habitat for protected species, is prone to flooding due to its topography, and lacks adequate access for both vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, the existing infrastructure is insufficient to support additional development without significant investment. The negative effects on wildlife and the increase in light pollution are also of great concern.
We urge the RDC to prioritize brownfield sites for development within the local plan. This approach would mitigate environmental concerns and preserve the character of our district.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28085
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Helen Kirkby
RE: TIC0003/TIC0004/TIC0043/TIC0044 (HOUSING):
Proposed new housing within the parish of Ticehurst would be welcome providing a proportion is dedicated and affordable for the local young and the older population of the village who would otherwise be unable to secure housing and a future for themselves and their families within the Ticehurst vicinity.
However, much thought must be given to the risk of overpopulation in a very small village such as Ticehurst whose present facilities and infrastructure would not currently meet the needs that these proposed sites as a whole would require.
Rother District Council should be able to assure both the Parish Council and the residents of Ticehurst that sustainability to accommodate the extra population, ( including availability of employment), has been thoroughly thought through and sufficiently remedied before any approval and building begins.