I wish to raise my concern and objections to sites TIC0027 and TIC0005 identified in the Rother Draft Plan 2020-2040. These sites are in direct contravention of:

NPPF section 13, para 143C
NPPF section 15, para 180-188
NPPF guidance May 24
LWL1
LWL2
GTC7
GTC8
GTC9
ENV5

These sites (but specifically TIC0027) are in the High Weald Area of National Landscape (formerly known as AONB) and are on land which forms part of and/or abuts Ancient Woodland (which local residents have worked hard to protect) and to the West, is a right of way used by hundreds of walkers (both local and from farther afield) to access the Ancient Woodland and Bewl Water beyond. To the East of the Development is woodland and other green space.

The area has a significant population of wildlife, birds, rabbits, deer, newts, snakes etc. It is a nesting site for birds and bats. It is a quiet and peace area of natural beauty and should be protected and preserved. Indeed, Rother itself described the Ancient Woodland in the Ancient Woodland Inventory as ‘irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery, carbon sequestration and cultural landscape’

The Development will damage the amenity of this important area and impact on the eco system.

Flimwell itself does not have the infrastructure to support more houses - there is no doctors surgery, shop or school. The bus service is poor and there are no footpaths that fully run towards the nearest villages of Ticehurst and Hawkhurst.

I also have concerns re:additional traffic (since the Corner Farm and Old Wardsdown developments there are often huge ques at the traffic lights joining the A21), how this would join the main road (B2087), and how a vehicle road would safely run alongside the pre existing public walk right of way to the woods.

It will create a small number of additional houses whilst causing significant, permanent environmental and cultural damage and negative impact for those surrounding the Development and the wider Flimwell population.

Please see attached submission document, which includes representations on:

Objections to HELAA sites
- TIC0008: Flimwell East Broad Location, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
- TIC0027: Land rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell

Objections to
- GYP0002: Land north of Broom Hill, Flimwell, Ticehurst Parish
- GYP0003: The Hollies, The Mount, Flimwell, Ticehurst parish

Comment on
- GYP0005: Land at North Bexhill, Watermill Lane, Bexhill

Comment on
- The consultation process

Please see attached submission document, which includes representations on:

Objections to HELAA sites
- TIC0008: Flimwell East Broad Location, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
- TIC0027: Land rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell

Objections to
- GYP0002: Land north of Broom Hill, Flimwell, Ticehurst Parish
- GYP0003: The Hollies, The Mount, Flimwell, Ticehurst parish

Comment on
- GYP0005: Land at North Bexhill, Watermill Lane, Bexhill

Comment on
- The consultation process

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.

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN 2020-2040 ... regarding GY 0038, GYP 0039, TIC 0027, TIC 0008

1/Proposed HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS in FLIMWELL:

Policy LWL 1/2 states Compact Developments in village areas show 25-45 density per hectare.
this includes backfill which as always has been resisted especially with the proximity to
Bedgebury Forest. there will be no "Demand Responsive Transport" in this area as it is on a bus
route and goes into Kent the east and the north.

Facilities and services says rural areas may be more than 800m, with safe good walking distance
to local amenities ie primary schools, doctors, parks and green spaces, shops, post offices and
banks.

None of these are within safe, usable walking routes. Nothing is within 20 minutes walk, its
impossible to use a bicycle safely and its too dangerous with the state of our local roads, and will
then necessitate use of cars and vans.

We have no good quality walking routes between Flimwell and Ticehurst for TIC0027 and the
same goes for the routes from Flimwell to Hawkhurst for TIC008.

We had a recent walkers death earlier this year in the area where the bulk of the new proposed
houses are mentioned in TIC008, behind The Weald Smokery and Sunnybank Cottages, and we
certainly need to be aware of the heavily congested A21 Crossroads which has certainly been an
Accident Blackspot for many years.

The proposed TIC0027 development has already had 9 houses put forward in The Neighbourhood
Plan. The remaining area of field is seen as a "future development opportunity". This area meets
the southern boundary of Warsdown Woodlands where there are trees up to 500 years old!!! i am
told that Section 15 of the NPPF affords the highest level of protection to ancient woodlands and
they should not be touched unless there are exceptional circumstances but of which there are
none in this case.

More recently a directive dated 01/05/2024 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net
gain. pollutants from the construction of 9 houses alone will cause irreparable damage to the
habitat and eco systems, with possible run-off of surface water and will pollute the stream leading
to the River Bewl !!!

Flimwell in general has limited job opportunities which will necessitate the use of the already over
stretched use of the A21.

It also has poor mobile and internet coverage, poor roads and pavements and cannot sustain
large housing developments as proposed within the LOCAL DRAFT PLAN 2020-40.


2/ GYP 0038 "The Hollies" on the Mount Flimwell:

Land now called The Hollies is covered by a Woodland tree preservation order and joins ancient
woodland to the South. The owner is already in breach of a tree preservation order and in breach
of a dwelling on the site without permission. He is also in breach of forming an access onto the
highway without permission from East Sussex County Council!!!!

In the HEELA assessment, it is a rejected site, unsuitable for dwellings.
Infrastructure needs to be in place in all areas as any new dwellings, should it be caravan,
wooden lodge or house, need energy and water efficient services.

The only amenities that are in this area are an expensive restaurant and also a high class Smokery
with a Deli / high class shop. I have now been told that the smokery business might have been
planned for demolishment in the HEELA maps !!


3/ GYP 0039 - Wardsdown

This is against POLICY R2 in Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan, to maintain green gaps between
settlements.

in HEELA it is a rejected site as it does not meet Rother District Councils objectives and has
historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north.


4/GENERAL. ..

In general, gypsy sites should be healthy and sustainable and inclusive, which support access to
jobs, general services, facilities where people can meet most of their daily needs within a
reasonable distance, to access shops, schools, doctors etc. Flimwell only has one bus an hour
and then only until early evening.

These 2 sites will increase dependancy on cars, increasing carbon emissions which is against the
"Green to the core" policies of the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN.

Both proposed sites are in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and this has the highest level of
protection.

Rother District Council have 80% of its land in the Natural Landscape.

I am made aware that Planning Policy for Travellers Sites states;
Section 3 {policy E} requires liaison with adjoining authorities that don't have such high levels of
restrictions and this must be done. It also states that there should be no development in a Green
Belt except in very special circumstances and I'm very sure there are none here!!!

The most recent NPPF guidance note, dated 01/05/2024 requires that all the provisions to protect
AONB from any developments except under "exceptional circumstances"

Objection to HELAA site TIC0027

I have lived in my house in FLimwell for over 30 happy years and am
shocked to hear that the land behind my house is included in the
proposed Local Plan 2020-2040 as a possible site for development.
I have always known that as it sites in an AONB it would be protected
at all cost, and even more so as it adjoins an Ancient Woodland with
some trees which are between 400 - 500 years old.
Has something changed that means that this important sites is not
deemed worthy of saving over a number of houses that could almost
certainly be built on another site causing less damage and loss of
somewhere so precious?
I am 83 years old and live a quiet life, of late I spend my time
enjoying the wildlife that seems to be increasing un numbers
( showing that a healthy environment must exist here)
I regularly see foxes, deer and numerous birds, more recently were
have had a definite increase in the bat population, these can be seen at
dusk flying over the fields.
I really must object to the development of this place, it is imperative
that we protect the environment and especially areas that are home to
such a rich collection of species.
Our village has very few facilities as it is, more houses would need a
surgery, which we don't have, a local shop, which we don't have,
school, which we don't have in walkable distance,
I could go on ...
Please reconsider including this site.

TIC0027

The land in question is in the High Weald National Landscape, adjacent to Ancient Woodland and a Priority Habitat.

This is a complete contradiction to NPPF section 13 paragraph 143(c) and section 15 paragraphs 180-188.

This site would destroy large areas of wildlife friendly land.

This land is in the National Landscape and borders ancient woodland which is afforded the highest level of protection under NPPF Section 15.

See also GTC8. LWL2 annd LWL3 are also relevant due to absence of facilities and services.

I would also refer to NPPF para 172 which emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONB.

TIC005

The land in question is in the High Weald National Landscape, adjacent to Ancient Woodland and a Priority Habitat.

This is a complete contradiction to NPPF section 13 paragraph 143(c) and section 15 paragraphs 180-188.

This site would destroy large areas of wildlife friendly land see NPPF Guidance May 2024.

This land is in the National Landscape and borders ancient woodland which is afforded the highest level of protection under NPPF Section 15.

See also GTC8. LWL2 is also relevant due to absence of facilities and services.

I would also refer to NPPF para 172 which emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONB.

TIC0039 - site GYP002

This is unsustainable as gypsy site.

I refer to NPP section 15 para 180 re protection and enhancement of valued landscape.

This development will not deliver net gain, see GTC8.

It also contravenes policy R2 re maintenance of a gap between Ticehurst and Flimwell.

I understand the land is boggy and is not suitable for caravans etc, in breach of policy LHN6.

Referring to planning policy for traveller sites section 1D and 3E, there should be no development in green belt areas except in exceptional circumstances. I do not believe any apply here.

It is against Core Strategy EN1 given impact in AONB location.

It is also contrary to GTC7 and see Policies LWL2 and LWL3 as to availability of local services and impact.

TIC0027

The land in question is in the High Weald National Landscape, adjacent to Ancient Woodland and a Priority Habitat.

This is a complete contradiction to NPPF section 13 paragraph 143(c) and section 15 paragraphs 180-188.

This site would destroy large areas of wildlife friendly land.

This land is in the National Landscape and borders ancient woodland which is afforded the highest level of protection under NPPF Section 15.

See also GTC8. LWL2 annd LWL3 are also relevant due to absence of facilities and services.

I would also refer to NPPF para 172 which emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONB.

TIC005

The land in question is in the High Weald National Landscape, adjacent to Ancient Woodland and a Priority Habitat.

This is a complete contradiction to NPPF section 13 paragraph 143(c) and section 15 paragraphs 180-188.

This site would destroy large areas of wildlife friendly land see NPPF Guidance May 2024.

This land is in the National Landscape and borders ancient woodland which is afforded the highest level of protection under NPPF Section 15.

See also GTC8. LWL2 is also relevant due to absence of facilities and services.

I would also refer to NPPF para 172 which emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONB.

TIC0039 - site GYP002

This is unsustainable as gypsy site.

I refer to NPP section 15 para 180 re protection and enhancement of valued landscape.

This development will not deliver net gain, see GTC8.

It also contravenes policy R2 re maintenance of a gap between Ticehurst and Flimwell.

I understand the land is boggy and is not suitable for caravans etc, in breach of policy LHN6.

Referring to planning policy for traveller sites section 1D and 3E, there should be no development in green belt areas except in exceptional circumstances. I do not believe any apply here.

It is against Core Strategy EN1 given impact in AONB location.

It is also contrary to GTC7 and see Policies LWL2 and LWL3 as to availability of local services and impact.