there is no specific site listed and the link 28 which states 3 sites with temporary planning can not be identified. Is the temporary allowance extended by appeal, that should have been cleared around the time of covid, but is still occupied, for the "telegraph point" Coldharbour Estate, TN21 9LQ one of these? this piece of land is owned by a commercial company. dispensation was given for the past traveller associations of the father, to the wife, of the shareholder, with an interest in the land, both of whom have been dead for some time. this is a straight forward failure of enforcement allowing continued occupation.

it seems to be to allow temporary site for current unplanned developments that get temporary planning, these are mostly in unsuitable sites that do not meet the assessment criteria set out in the last traveller site consultation for implementation I think 2016

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q104. We welcome this policy.

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

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

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

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

See attached document

Full submission attached.

Q1: Re: "1.7 The plan sets twin overall priorities (‘Green to the Core’ and ‘Live Well Locally’)" - I applaud the ambition, but am concerened to see, additionally, a clear statement that BOTH priorities are EQUAL, even if one has to written before the other.

Q6: This is a highly technical policy that really needs another section before ()A) for application to small developments, being undertaken without the benefit of highly qualified experts.

Q9: Agreed a good Policy

Q11: Agreed a good Policy

Q18: Re: "3.36 The opportunity for the development of wind turbines within the district, is extremely limited..." - I beleive very small scale wind power turbines down to single dwelling capability should be considered since technology could deliver economical useful machines within the timescale of this Plan.

Q22/23: RE: "All qualifying development proposals must deliver at least a 20% measurable
biodiversity net gain..." - understood but the metric for qualification is not easy to find?
Agreed a good Policy to go beyond 10%.

Q25: Agreed a good Policy

Q28: Re: "a. Urban areas in Bexhill, Battle and Rye: 60-90+ dph, with higher densities
around transport hubs and town and district centres.
b. Suburban areas in Bexhill, Battle, Hasting Fringes and Rye: 45-75 dph." - it is hard to understand the difference between Urban and Suburban, even with Fig 8? Until 4.15 work is carried out I reserve my judgemment on this Policy.

Q32: In essence a good policy, but some examples e.g. bank have long since gone even from towns within Rother so hardly an OK exemplar. I wonder if 800m is the right parameter - in my road many residents would get their car out for such a distance, few possibly only 20% would walk that distance.

Q33: Whist overall I agree this is a good Policy - I think it needs to be more clearly sectioned, maybe even several seperate Ploicies. Re: "g. Appropriate signage and wayfinding." -this has often or nearly always been overlooked - so a very welcome improvement.

Q35: I particularly like this policy and the 400m parameter, which of course certainly should apply to the Blackfriars development - so a major step forward if it is applied, since previously RDC has in effect only considered on-site access not off-site access.

Q37: I am concerned that no mention is made of former PRoW (FPs) being re-routed through development sites across multiple driveways; rather tah finding contiguous routings through or outside the site connecting to the existing network without having to contend with multiple drive crossings. Though see also Q104 comment.

Q38: Agreed about ixc) Shared Use Routes - the higher age range demographic deprecate shared use, due to (anecdotally) cyclists lack of concern for less ambulant walkers. Very little chance of people buy-in to Demand Responsive Transport, car clubs and car shares!

Q45: Agreed a good Policy; though I note: "inclusively designed so that people with visual, mobility or other limitations will be able to use the street confidently and safely.", so do not see why "iii) Dementia Friendly District" is highlighted, when it would be better to categorise as for example "those with reduced sensory perceptions and mobility"?

Q51: Agreed a good Policy. Crowhurst should be in the Battle SDO; whereas it may be better to exclude Sedlescombe for the battle SDO, due to the decisive split that the A21 causes and Sedlescombe fees more adjacent (connected) to Westfield. Quite evident in Fig 12.

Q62: Re: "5.56 Battle is a small, historic market town." Umm - not a good summary, it should be: "Battle is a small, historic FORMER market town.", since all banks now gone...

Q74: This policy area is so heavily over burdened by national and county council legislation and determination, I recommend the LP only provides for the minimal provision since there is nowadays negligible agricultural seasonal employment upon which much of the legislation appears to be based.

Q76: Fig 35/36 - I do not agree that Battle has " Greater opportunity for growth, since already the constraints discussed show minimal opportunity e.g. NPPF/NL conditions. Furtermore the employment locations expansion in Battle are, as the Neighbourhood Plan Calls showed, almost negligible and certainly not as RDC pushed for when the NP was being developed.

Q84: Agreed a good Policy.

Q90: It is hard to understand why the RDC/Inspector refused to allow the proposed Gap along the Hastings Road at Telham was not allowed in the Battle NP, given these arguments it would have enhanced the protection: "The Gap between Battle and Hastings/St Leonards provides an important function in maintaining the separate identities of Battle and the built-up area of Hastings/St Leonards. The break in the ribbon development between the edge of Telham and the Hastings Borough boundary at Breadsell Farm is highly vulnerable to change particularly in more open areas and the higher ground and ridges."

Q96: In view of the source of this Policy will it now be applied Rother wide?

Q104: Agreed a good Policy. I welcome this new Policy, especially the aspects regarding diversion of FPs within development sites be required to deliver "equivalent" access and "must be replicated" See also comment to Q37.

Q109: Agreed a good Policy.

Q112: Agreed a good Policy.

Q119: I do not favour "100% affordable housing schemes". Surely "pepperpotting" is a better solution?

Q121: Given my comment on Q119, I do not really agree with is Policy, however given the intent for "substantially affordable housing", I would accept the need could be so satisfied.

Q125: Agreed a good Policy.

Q131: I welcome further work on this need.

Q133: Agreed a good Policy.

Q147: I would like to see a strengthening to no permission would be given to changing natural boundary hedges and trees.

Q149: Conversions/extensions of an older wood construction building by using modern brick construction, for example, should not normally be permitted, since they would significantly alter the street scene.

Q153: Agreed a good Policy, however I do not agree that in 8.179 Laurel is preferred - it is too fast growing and likely to over burden other growth.

Q170: Agreed a good Policy. I particularly welcome "xi) Where practicable, the track is opened as a path for permissive public usage or as Public Right of Way, and should be accessible from the existing Public Rights of Way network", since this would make the applicant aware that they could provide a beneficial PRoW spin-off from their operations, not previously or normally offered.

Q178: Agreed a good Policy.

Q180: Agreed a good Policy.

Q182: Agreed a good Policy. Welcomed and for reasons of energy saving an emphasis on PIR use should be paramount.

Q195: Agreed a good Policy. But I am confused by this wording: "vi) For Ancient Woodland, create a development buffer zone of at least 15 metres. An impact assessment will be required where any development is proposed within 25 metres of Ancient Woodland to demonstrate that the proposed buffer zone avoids negative effects on the habitat.", since surely a single buffer zone of 25m would suffice?

Appendix 2: Surely "Market square including Jempsons shop and others should be considered as in the "Battle Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area", even if not contiguously connected? The south-eastern limit of the appears to miss out several shops/cafes of importance...

Q208: "proposed monitoring framework" appears to be a comprehensive methodology to adopt. but i wonder how it will be reported?

I respectfully ask that you consider our concerns about the two proposed sites for the above GYP0002 and GYP0003 within Rother District.

We live halfway between the two sites in Flimwell. I believe they are both unsuitable for the following reasons:-

1. Both areas of land are small particularly for the proposed number of pitches 6 and 5 respectfully.
These pitches could have two caravans on which potentially means 12 and 10 vans altogether. This number would generally be homes for families, their pets possibly cats, dogs and horses etc. The homes would require space for the occupants cars and possibly business vehicles. There are concerns of the damage this is likely to cause to the environment (in particular vehicular traffic ) and possibly wildlife, against the characteristics of the National Landscape policy ( AONB) including tranquility, light protection, protecting wildlife and vegetation.

2. Besides being far too small GYP0003 is situated next door to listed buildings on a main road with no amenities water, electricity and is likely to harm to the character and appearance of the area . An previous planning application for 4 houses was refused and then again on appeal. The same points are relevant in this matter see APP/W/3321909.

3. The sites are next to ancient woodland with public footpaths with risk of flooding from surface water.

4. Consideration of the sites would be contrary to the Neighbourhood plan which needs to be respected and supported.

5 Developments need to conserve and enhance the area. Both sites would not do this. This has been reiterated in recent unsuccessful appeals for planning including

a)Old Vineyard, Pashley Road, Ticehurst APP/U1430/W23/3330956

b) Land adjacent to Seacox, The Mount, Flimwell TN5 7QP APP/W/23/3321909

A number of the inspectors’ points are relevant to these applications and should be considered.

I wish to put forward my thoughts about the proposed Travellers site at Broom Hill, Flimwell.

The proposed site comes within the High Weald National Landscape and with the great deal of wildlife known to be found in this area, it could impact on the environment.

Residents and dog walkers in the area regularly use the public footpath which runs along the site, which could cause problems if the travelling community has animals/livestock that aren't enclosed.

I underdstand that adjacent to the site is ancient woodland which is protected by The Woodland Trust. Therefore I would be concerned if any development in such close proximity to this protected area could put these trees at risk.

The site being proposed is also liable to flood which could be another issue.

The proposed site has been refused planning for housing development in the past, for one reason being trying to protect the green spaces between the villages of Ticehurst and Flimwell as per the Neighbourhood plan and the preferences of the existing community. This proposed development could be in conflict with that.

The site is not in a good position for the travellers needs according to the HELAA. There are no pathways all along the road for anyone to walk to the adjacent villages

Access to the site is on a bend of a busy road with a 40 mile speed limit which could cause accidents.

Services in the area of Flimwell are very limited and Ticehurst is a very busy village that does have facilities but the biggest issue is Ticehurst/Wadhurst Doctors Surgery which is not able to provide the level of care required for the existing residents.

I would request that consideration be given to all of the points above in the decision making process regarding the appropriate location for this site.