Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24790
Received: 31/05/2024
Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council
It would be far better to have clearly allocated sites as opposed to opening the district up to G and T sites in any viable location which will conflict with policies for all other housing!
Please see attached comments on draft Local Plan, including Brede Valley Landscape Assessment and East Sussex Landscape Assessment.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24841
Received: 13/06/2024
Respondent: Conrad Purcell
Sites which are considered unsuitable for housing developments e.g. because of the impact on nearby listed buildings or because of a lack of safe access and egress from roads should equally not be approved for use as Gypsy and Traveller sites since the same considerations apply. Where a site becomes available due to unlawful removal of trees such a site should not be considered for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site as this will prevent the regrowth of trees.
Sites which are considered unsuitable for housing developments e.g. because of the impact on nearby listed buildings or because of a lack of safe access and egress from roads should equally not be approved for use as Gypsy and Traveller sites since the same considerations apply. Where a site becomes available due to unlawful removal of trees such a site should not be considered for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site as this will prevent the regrowth of trees.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24842
Received: 13/06/2024
Respondent: Ms Brooke Ramsdale
I witnessed the recent death on the main road, just after it happened. It is very dangerous. I am concerned at the thought of a large settlement of people near that dangerous road, especially children on bikes etc. My 6yo saw a dead body ripped to pieces on the road. The road is hugely problematic in terms of traffic already - it generally takes me 2-3 turns of the lights to get onto the A21. This is partly because of traffic density but also that most cars are turning onto the A21, and cars slow to turn (especially if they have a trailer/horse etc). Adding to the congestion on that road will be a nightmare.
There is no access currently for that property. When 1 postman stops on the road to make a delivery it has huge consequences with traffic backing up. Adding multiple occupancy is not a great idea.
I am genuinely concerned for the following reasons:
- I witnessed the recent death on the main road, just after it happened. It was absolutely horrific and had reminded me of how dangerous that road it. I am concerned at the thought of a large settlement of people near that dangerous road, especially children on bikes etc. I worry for the people, but also for us. My 6yo saw a dead body ripped to pieces on the road. It has stayed with both of us
- The road is hugely problematic in terms of traffic already - it generally takes me 2-3 turns of the lights to get onto the A21. This is partly bc of traffic density but also that most cars are turning onto the a21, and cars slow to turn (esp if they have a trailer/horse etc). Adding to the congestion on that road will be a nightmare. And there is no access currently for that property. When 1 postman stops on the road to make a delivery - it has huge consequences with traffic backing up. Adding multiple occupancy is not a great idea
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24875
Received: 18/06/2024
Respondent: Fabien Joly
Strong Objections to Proposed GTTS Site
The proposed Gypsy and Traveller site raises critical safety and planning concerns. The recent road fatality on the dangerous main road, with its existing congestion issues, makes it unsuitable for a large settlement, especially considering children's safety. The lack of proper access and the negative impact on traffic flow further highlight the site's inappropriateness.
Furthermore, allowing GTTS sites in any viable location contradicts established planning policies. Rejected housing applications on this very site due to safety concerns with the listed building, sightlines, and access should be considered as they directly translate to similar issues for a GTTS development. Approving this site disregards previous decisions and prioritizes convenience over safety and responsible planning.
This proposed Gypsy and Traveller site raises safety and planning issues:
Dangerous Road: The recent traffic fatality highlights the danger of the main road, especially for children. Increased traffic from a large settlement would exacerbate this.
Congestion: The already congested road, with long wait times to access the A21, would worsen with more traffic. Increased turning movements and slower vehicles (trailers/horses) would create a nightmare scenario.
Limited Access: The lack of proper access for even a single delivery vehicle indicates the site is unsuitable for multiple occupants.
Inappropriate Location: Opening the district to any viable location for GTTS sites contradicts established planning policies.
Rejected Application Relevance: Rejected planning applications for housing on this site should be considered due to similar location requirements.
Listed Building and Safety Concerns: The dismissed housing application highlighted concerns about a listed building, tree loss, access to facilities, and sightlines to the east. These concerns remain valid for a GTTS site.
Approving this site contradicts previous decisions and prioritises expediency over safety and responsible planning.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24915
Received: 25/06/2024
Respondent: Robert Lindsay
We need a lot more pitches for Gypies and Travellers than what you think. I need five for just my family. So you say is 9 wrongful. I could get at least 20 - 30 people just like that. I didn't ant to go onto land I don't own or are we all going to be put on a plane to Rwanda? I've lived within a three mile radius of Flimwell for over 30 years. I'm part of the community. Stop trying to swipe it under the carpet.
Build homes, caravans or houses - whatever we need. Remember, AONB is wrongful - natural means untouched by man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is being disguised as unlawful.
We need a lot more pitches for Gypies and Travellers than what you think. I need five for just my family. So you say is 9 wrongful. I could get at least 20 - 30 people just like that. I didn't ant to go onto land I don't own or are we all going to be put on a plane to Rwanda? I've lived within a three mile radius of Flimwell for over 30 years. I'm part of the community. Stop trying to swipe it under the carpet.
Build homes, caravans or houses - whatever we need. Remember, AONB is wrongful - natural means untouched by man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is being disguised as unlawful.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24942
Received: 01/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Alan Wallace
I am totally against the proposal for a permanent traveller site in Flimwell. Firstly Flimwell has no schools or medical facilities that would benefit the traveller community and secondly I was unfortunate enough to have seen the poor man that was killed by the Smokery on November 16th 2023 and it was absolutely horrific and is something that will stay with me for the rest of my life and any plans that are passed which would result in that road becoming more dangerous and deadly than it is already would be totally irresponsible. Protected trees and important and essential habitat for protected wildlife (sloworms/bats etc) have already been destroyed on the site. Proposal should be denied and fines imposed to replant the land to regrow naturally.
I am totally against the proposal for a permanent traveller site in Flimwell. Firstly Flimwell has no schools or medical facilities that would benefit the traveller community and secondly I was unfortunate enough to have seen the poor man that was killed by the Smokery on November 16th 2023 and it was absolutely horrific and is something that will stay with me for the rest of my life and any plans that are passed which would result in that road becoming more dangerous and deadly than it is already would be totally irresponsible. Protected trees and important and essential habitat for protected wildlife (sloworms/bats etc) have already been destroyed on the site. Proposal should be denied and fines imposed to replant the land to regrow naturally.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25251
Received: 11/07/2024
Respondent: Ms V Reynolds
I object to the proposal of a Gypsy and Traveller site at this location for numerous reasons.
Firstly the previous planning application for 2 dwellings was rejected ; those very same reasons are still applicable.
I have witnessed TPO's being disregarded here and valuable trees and hedgerows destroyed. This has upset local residents and more importantly will have had a detrimental effect on wildlife and biodiversity.
The road is heavily over used already and barely copes with the amount of traffic (many HGV's) using it. The backlog of traffic in peak hours is forever building and heavily contributes to air pollution and noise pollution for local residents.
The sad death late last year shook everyone and highlighted the overuse and lack of appropriate speed limit in place.
The site is not suitable in an AONB and so close to listed buildings.
I object to the proposal of a Gypsy and Traveller site at this location for numerous reasons.
Firstly the previous planning application for 2 dwellings was rejected ; those very same reasons are still applicable.
I have witnessed TPO's being disregarded here and valuable trees and hedgerows destroyed. This has upset local residents and more importantly will have had a detrimental effect on wildlife and biodiversity.
The road is heavily over used already and barely copes with the amount of traffic (many HGV's) using it. The backlog of traffic in peak hours is forever building and heavily contributes to air pollution and noise pollution for local residents.
The sad death late last year shook everyone and highlighted the overuse and lack of appropriate speed limit in place.
The site is not suitable in an AONB and so close to listed buildings.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25300
Received: 12/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Simon Jones
GYP0003/GYP0002
TIC0043/TIC0044/TIC0008/TIC0027
Strong objections to the proposed GTTS site
There are genuine safety concerns linked to these sites which will increase traffic congestion directly off a major road with a recent history of fatalities. No consideration has been given to the safety of children with no footpath between the proposed sites and the local school. The proposals fail to meet the principles of high quality design and will have poor visual character. Existing residential amenities, facilities and services will fail to provide for the development. The proposals will not reinforce the natural landscape and give no attention to the conservation of a designated AONB. Other notable concerns include the topography of the sites in relation to the placement of mobile homes, the breaching of the Flimwell/Ticehurst gap and that previous housing applications were rejected.
GYP0003/GYP0002
TIC0043/TIC0044/TIC0008/TIC0027
Strong objections to the proposed GTTS site
There are genuine safety concerns linked to these sites which will increase traffic congestion directly off a major road with a recent history of fatalities. No consideration has been given to the safety of children with no footpath between the proposed sites and the local school. The proposals fail to meet the principles of high quality design and will have poor visual character. Existing residential amenities, facilities and services will fail to provide for the development. The proposals will not reinforce the natural landscape and give no attention to the conservation of a designated AONB. Other notable concerns include the topography of the sites in relation to the placement of mobile homes, the breaching of the Flimwell/Ticehurst gap and that previous housing applications were rejected.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25363
Received: 13/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Russell Harper-More
site ID: GYP0002.
This site has already been rejected for housing (TIC0039) on two occasions due to it being in direct confliction of policy reference GTC9, And is again in direct conflict regarding this proposed travelers site. This is due to the fact that it will not be in keeping with the landscape and settlement planning, and will not have dwellings designed in a way that reflects the nationally-designated status as landscape of the highest quality.
It would in fact be a complete blight to this designated Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB).
I believe this is also an area of land protected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for its outstanding
natural beauty, and should be respected as such.
site ID: GYP0002.
This site has already been rejected for housing (TIC0039) on two occasions due to it being in direct confliction of policy reference GTC9, And is again in direct conflict regarding this proposed travelers site. This is due to the fact that it will not be in keeping with the landscape and settlement planning, and will not have dwellings designed in a way that reflects the nationally-designated status as landscape of the highest quality.
It would in fact be a complete blight to this designated Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB).
I believe this is also an area of land protected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for its outstanding
natural beauty, and should be respected as such.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25378
Received: 14/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Russell Harper-More
Site Ref: GYP0002
This site is home to a vast collective of wildlife and plays a huge part in the sustainability of its inhabitants as well as its surrounding wildlife. It is grazed daily by Deer, and is a daily food source for a number of 'Birds of Prey' that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
To develop this land in any way, would most definitely threaten and possibly destroy the 'Birds of Prey's' chances of survival, and would most certainly, greatly impact all wildlife that rely on this Site to survive.
Additionally, I also have reason to believe that Great Crested Newts have also been sited.
Site Ref: GYP0002
This site is home to a vast collective of wildlife and plays a huge part in the sustainability of its inhabitants as well as its surrounding wildlife. It is grazed daily by Deer, and is a daily food source for a number of 'Birds of Prey' that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
To develop this land in any way, would most definitely threaten and possibly destroy the 'Birds of Prey's' chances of survival, and would most certainly, greatly impact all wildlife that rely on this Site to survive.
Additionally, I also have reason to believe that Great Crested Newts have also been sited.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25379
Received: 14/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Russell Harper-More
Site Ref GYP0002
This site is not suitable for that of which has been proposed, as it would have an adverse effect and detract from the character and appearance of its locality, directly conflicting with Policy OSSB4 (iii), and is not compatible with the conservation of the High Weald AONB.
Furthermore, it would not be in the interest of and would in fact be in breach of Policy EN1 (i) (V) (Vi) (Vii) and (Viii), as per the Rother Local Plan, Core Strategy.
Site Ref GYP0002
This site is not suitable for that of which has been proposed, as it would have an adverse effect and detract from the character and appearance of its locality, directly conflicting with Policy OSSB4 (iii), and is not compatible with the conservation of the High Weald AONB.
Furthermore, it would not be in the interest of and would in fact be in breach of Policy EN1 (i) (V) (Vi) (Vii) and (Viii), as per the Rother Local Plan, Core Strategy.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25381
Received: 14/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Russell Harper-More
Site Ref: GYP0002
This is not a suitable site for Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople. Nor was it deemed suitable for housing development (TIC0039), Hence it having been rejected twice.
This proposition does not meet the Criteria of Policy LHN6 (ii), and does not meet the Criteria of the NPPF, whereby in paragraph 115 it states that Development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative
impacts on the road network would be severe.
it would definitely impact highway safety where the site access would need to be situated, and it would not be adequately accessible for vehicles towing caravans, or in the case of Travelling Showpeople, the site would not be
suitable for the storage of large items of mobile equipment, breaching again, policy LHN6 in points (iV) and (Vii).
Site Ref: GYP0002
This is not a suitable site for Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople. Nor was it deemed suitable for housing development (TIC0039), Hence it having been rejected twice.
This proposition does not meet the Criteria of Policy LHN6 (ii), and does not meet the Criteria of the NPPF, whereby in paragraph 115 it states that Development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative
impacts on the road network would be severe.
it would definitely impact highway safety where the site access would need to be situated, and it would not be adequately accessible for vehicles towing caravans, or in the case of Travelling Showpeople, the site would not be
suitable for the storage of large items of mobile equipment, breaching again, policy LHN6 in points (iV) and (Vii).
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25384
Received: 14/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Samantha Wallace
Strong Objection to Gypsy and Travellers Site on land at Seacoxers.
GYP0003 / TIC0008
This land is covered by Woodland Tree Preservation Order. There have been 2 unsuccessful attempts for planning for 2 and 4 properties, which have both been refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal.
Flimwell has no school or doctors surgery.
No shopping facilities either.
With regards to road safety, the recent fatality very much highlights how dangerous the road is.
Serious concern for pedestrians (especially children) walking to and from site because of inadequate kerb width over the entire length of A268.
Impact on surrounding Listed Buildings (the settled community).
Undue stress to an already established community in regards to GTTS and other proposed housing.
Any approving of this site will contradict the previous decisions.
Strong Objection to Gypsy and Travellers Site on land at Seacoxers.
GYP0003 / TIC0008
This land is covered by Woodland Tree Preservation Order. There have been 2 unsuccessful attempts for planning for 2 and 4 properties, which have both been refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal.
Flimwell has no school or doctors surgery.
No shopping facilities either.
With regards to road safety, the recent fatality very much highlights how dangerous the road is.
Serious concern for pedestrians (especially children) walking to and from site because of inadequate kerb width over the entire length of A268.
Impact on surrounding Listed Buildings (the settled community).
Undue stress to an already established community in regards to GTTS and other proposed housing.
Any approving of this site will contradict the previous decisions.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25404
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Stephen Mummery
Sites at Flimwell
GYP0002 & GYP0003
I have a strong objection to both these sites as:-
Both these sites have been rejected for housing and as such should not be considered for the housing of Gypsies or Travellers. These sites are located in the High Weald AONB/National Landscape which should give them the highest level of protection and would be contary to section 15 of the NPPF. Site GYP0002 is protected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Site GYP0003 is covered by a Woodland Tree Preservation Order. NPPF guidance note dated 1/5/24 requires developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which could not be achieved if either became a Traveller site. The site would also adversley effect and detract from the character and apperarance of its locality which would directly conflict with policy OSSB4 (iii).
Sites at Flimwell
GYP0002 & GYP0003
I have a strong objection to both these sites as:-
Both these sites have been rejected for housing and as such should not be considered for the housing of Gypsies or Travellers. These sites are located in the High Weald AONB/National Landscape which should give them the highest level of protection and would be contary to section 15 of the NPPF. Site GYP0002 is protected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Site GYP0003 is covered by a Woodland Tree Preservation Order. NPPF guidance note dated 1/5/24 requires developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which could not be achieved if either became a Traveller site. The site would also adversley effect and detract from the character and apperarance of its locality which would directly conflict with policy OSSB4 (iii).
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25443
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Jo Cuddy
GYP0002 – Broomhill, Flimwell
This land is in the green gap which should not be developed “unless the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area”, I believe this site will negatively impact the character of the area.
The land is boggy for a large part of the year.
The land adjoins ancient woodland and a meadow which provides habitat for a variety of wildlife and development will not deliver a biodiversity net gain (GTC8).
The B2087 at this point cannot be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans.
LWL2 – there are no facilities within walking distance besides which there are no pavements and cars routinely break the speed limit making walking anywhere unsafe. Public transport is limited.
GYP0002 – Broomhill, Flimwell
This land is in the green gap which should not be developed “unless the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area”, I believe this site will negatively impact the character of the area.
The land is boggy for a large part of the year.
The land adjoins ancient woodland and a meadow which provides habitat for a variety of wildlife and development will not deliver a biodiversity net gain (GTC8).
The B2087 at this point cannot be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans.
LWL2 – there are no facilities within walking distance besides which there are no pavements and cars routinely break the speed limit making walking anywhere unsafe. Public transport is limited.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25444
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Jo Cuddy
GYP0002 – Broomhill, Flimwell
This land is in the green gap which should not be developed “unless the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area”, I believe this site will negatively impact the character of the area.
The land is boggy for a large part of the year.
The land adjoins ancient woodland and a meadow which provides habitat for a variety of wildlife and development will not deliver a biodiversity net gain (GTC8).
The B2087 at this point cannot be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans.
LWL2 – there are no facilities within walking distance besides which there are no pavements and cars routinely break the speed limit making walking anywhere unsafe. Public transport is limited.
GYP0002 – Broomhill, Flimwell
This land is in the green gap which should not be developed “unless the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area”, I believe this site will negatively impact the character of the area.
The land is boggy for a large part of the year.
The land adjoins ancient woodland and a meadow which provides habitat for a variety of wildlife and development will not deliver a biodiversity net gain (GTC8).
The B2087 at this point cannot be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans.
LWL2 – there are no facilities within walking distance besides which there are no pavements and cars routinely break the speed limit making walking anywhere unsafe. Public transport is limited.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25449
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Christopher Harrison
GYP0003 - The Hollies, Flimwell
This site is in the National Landscape. On 26.4.2024, appeal for housing dismissed. Reasons given, impact on neighbouring listed buildings (settled community), inconsistent with AONB and site line requirement not in ownership of the site.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, sections 1D and 3E - there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances and there are none. NPPF section 15 applies, paragraphs 180-186, conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Para 188, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply with a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a habitat site.
1.5.2024 NPPF directive. All developments to achieve biodiversity net gain. The current occupation of this site has already seen biodiversity massively reversed.
GYP0003 - The Hollies, Flimwell
This site is in the National Landscape. On 26.4.2024, appeal for housing dismissed. Reasons given, impact on neighbouring listed buildings (settled community), inconsistent with AONB and site line requirement not in ownership of the site.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, sections 1D and 3E - there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances and there are none. NPPF section 15 applies, paragraphs 180-186, conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Para 188, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply with a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a habitat site.
1.5.2024 NPPF directive. All developments to achieve biodiversity net gain. The current occupation of this site has already seen biodiversity massively reversed.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25450
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Christopher Harrison
GYP0002 – Land north of Broom Hill, Flimwell
This site is in the National Landscape within the Ticehurst/Flimwell green gap (designated Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan).
Planning policy for traveller sites Sections 1D and 3E says there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances; there are none.
NPPF section 15 paragraphs 180 – 186 apply, conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Para 188, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply with a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a habitat site.
The site has been refused for housing, any reasons given surely would equally apply to traveller pitches. NPPF directive 1.5.2024, all developments to have a biodiversity net gain – impossible to achieve. The site is very boggy, especially towards the north and west and provides exceptionally important habitat, adjacent to ancient woodlands.
GYP0002 – Land north of Broom Hill, Flimwell
This site is in the National Landscape within the Ticehurst/Flimwell green gap (designated Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan).
Planning policy for traveller sites Sections 1D and 3E says there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances; there are none.
NPPF section 15 paragraphs 180 – 186 apply, conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Para 188, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply with a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a habitat site.
The site has been refused for housing, any reasons given surely would equally apply to traveller pitches. NPPF directive 1.5.2024, all developments to have a biodiversity net gain – impossible to achieve. The site is very boggy, especially towards the north and west and provides exceptionally important habitat, adjacent to ancient woodlands.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25538
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Elaine R
Traveller site TIC0039 GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell)
The location of the proposed site contravenes Policy R2 in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood Plans - maintaining green gaps between settlements – being within the Ticehurst-Flimwell Green Gap.
In HELAA as a rejected site as it does not meet Rother District Council’s (RDC) objectives – there are historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north.
The proposed site slopes down to the west/north west and would be prominent and encroach on the natural beauty of the countryside.
The proposed site is an area at high risk of surface water flooding, in fact it is often completely waterlogged, making it totally unsuitable for any kind of human habitation and development, whilst being entirely suitable for the wide variety and extensive wildlife that currently resides there.
Traveller site TIC0039 GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell)
The location of the proposed site contravenes Policy R2 in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood Plans - maintaining green gaps between settlements – being within the Ticehurst-Flimwell Green Gap.
In HELAA as a rejected site as it does not meet Rother District Council’s (RDC) objectives – there are historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north.
The proposed site slopes down to the west/north west and would be prominent and encroach on the natural beauty of the countryside.
The proposed site is an area at high risk of surface water flooding, in fact it is often completely waterlogged, making it totally unsuitable for any kind of human habitation and development, whilst being entirely suitable for the wide variety and extensive wildlife that currently resides there.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25539
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Elaine R
Traveller site TIC0039 GYP0002
The site is in the National Landscape and demands the highest level of protection. RDC have 80% of land in the National Landscape. Planning policy for traveller sites (Section 3, Policy E) states that liason with adjoining authorities without such high levels of restrictions is required. There should be NO development in a green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances.
National Planning Policy Framework, Section 15, applies: The National Landscape has to be protected from any development except under exceptional circumstances.
NPPF guidance of 01.05.24 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, this would not be possible to achieve.
National Landscape habitat and biodiversity must be maintained. The negative impact on both with the proposed site would not be recoverable.
There are NO exceptional circumstances that enable the proposed site to proceed re Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the NPPF.
Traveller site TIC0039 GYP0002
The site is in the National Landscape and demands the highest level of protection. RDC have 80% of land in the National Landscape. Planning policy for traveller sites (Section 3, Policy E) states that liason with adjoining authorities without such high levels of restrictions is required. There should be NO development in a green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances.
National Planning Policy Framework, Section 15, applies: The National Landscape has to be protected from any development except under exceptional circumstances.
NPPF guidance of 01.05.24 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, this would not be possible to achieve.
National Landscape habitat and biodiversity must be maintained. The negative impact on both with the proposed site would not be recoverable.
There are NO exceptional circumstances that enable the proposed site to proceed re Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the NPPF.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25540
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Elaine R
Traveller site TIC0039 GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell)
In terms of the specific wildlife that would be impacted by the proposed development, the site is home to numerous animals, reptiles, birds and insects, a number of which are protected and as such must not be disturbed. Species that are resident to the proposed site include: Grass snakes, adders, Great Crested Newts, toads, frogs, bats, a huge variety of insects and birds, and deer. Re the deer (fallow, roe and montjacs), during the fawning season, the deer from the woods hide their fawns in the long grass and bracken on the proposed site during the day, whilst they go out and feed, returning to their young later in the day. Councils have responsibilities not to disturb such wildlife or to interfere with their breeding grounds.
Traveller site TIC0039 GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell)
In terms of the specific wildlife that would be impacted by the proposed development, the site is home to numerous animals, reptiles, birds and insects, a number of which are protected and as such must not be disturbed. Species that are resident to the proposed site include: Grass snakes, adders, Great Crested Newts, toads, frogs, bats, a huge variety of insects and birds, and deer. Re the deer (fallow, roe and montjacs), during the fawning season, the deer from the woods hide their fawns in the long grass and bracken on the proposed site during the day, whilst they go out and feed, returning to their young later in the day. Councils have responsibilities not to disturb such wildlife or to interfere with their breeding grounds.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25566
Received: 18/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Elaine R
Traveller site GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell) FAILS to meet the stated criteria in RDC’s Proposed Policy HOU11: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople:
i. The site IS located in a site of importance for biodiversity / area of Priority Habitat.
ii. The site IS in an area at high risk of flooding, as it slopes away and is often waterlogged.
iii. The site IS in an area of distinctive landscape character and scenic beauty (being in the National Landscape) and in particular being close to Bewl Water. There are also historical field boundaries and ancient woodland to the north. Regard must be paid to the conservation of the High Weald National Landscape, and the site has the potential to impact that.
iv. Whilst the site is close to an existing settlement, it is arguably NOT easily accessible to local services by foot, by cycle or by public transport.
Traveller site GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell) FAILS to meet the stated criteria in RDC’s Proposed Policy HOU11: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople:
i. The site IS located in a site of importance for biodiversity / area of Priority Habitat.
ii. The site IS in an area at high risk of flooding, as it slopes away and is often waterlogged.
iii. The site IS in an area of distinctive landscape character and scenic beauty (being in the National Landscape) and in particular being close to Bewl Water. There are also historical field boundaries and ancient woodland to the north. Regard must be paid to the conservation of the High Weald National Landscape, and the site has the potential to impact that.
iv. Whilst the site is close to an existing settlement, it is arguably NOT easily accessible to local services by foot, by cycle or by public transport.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25568
Received: 18/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Elaine R
Traveller site GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell) FAILS to meet the stated criteria in the Proposed Policy HOU11: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople:
v. The site CANNOT be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans. Access is via a narrow B road who's 40mph limit is often exceeded. Speeding issues have been reported to Police but are unresolved. Local homeowners have to reverse park and have very limited visibility pulling out. Access for large, long or slow moving vehicles would be extremely dangerous. Furthermore, the boggy nature of the ground, would NOT provide adequate and safe provision for on-site parking, turning, and access for emergency vehicles.
vi. The site COULD potentially be disproportionate in scale to the existing settlement, as most of the existing properties along the road are spread out along the road in small units.
vii. The site DOES HAVE the potential to affect the amenity of adjoining properties.
Traveller site GYP0002 (land at Broomhill, Flimwell) FAILS to meet the stated criteria in the Proposed Policy HOU11: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople:
v. The site CANNOT be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans. Access is via a narrow B road who's 40mph limit is often exceeded. Speeding issues have been reported to Police but are unresolved. Local homeowners have to reverse park and have very limited visibility pulling out. Access for large, long or slow moving vehicles would be extremely dangerous. Furthermore, the boggy nature of the ground, would NOT provide adequate and safe provision for on-site parking, turning, and access for emergency vehicles.
vi. The site COULD potentially be disproportionate in scale to the existing settlement, as most of the existing properties along the road are spread out along the road in small units.
vii. The site DOES HAVE the potential to affect the amenity of adjoining properties.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25613
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Lynne Goodchild
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to this site because the proposed site is a ridge top site within the High Weald National Landscape with extensive views to the Northwest including Bewl Water with historic boundaries adjacent to ancient woodland. It is within the Ticehurst-Flimwell Green gap and forms part of a probable Medieval assart.
A site would be prominent in long views appearing as an encroachment into the countryside and impacting on the landscape and character of the National Landscape.
This conflicts with the Local plan
-GTC 9 vii viii ix addressing ancient woodland, dark skies and historic field boundaries
-LAN3 light pollution and rural character
-HOU11 fails to meet the criteria for a traveller site ii iii iv v
It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 15 - conserving and enhancing the natural environment and Section 3, Policy E - Traveller sites in a Green Belt.
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to this site because the proposed site is a ridge top site within the High Weald National Landscape with extensive views to the Northwest including Bewl Water with historic boundaries adjacent to ancient woodland. It is within the Ticehurst-Flimwell Green gap and forms part of a probable Medieval assart.
A site would be prominent in long views appearing as an encroachment into the countryside and impacting on the landscape and character of the National Landscape.
This conflicts with the Local plan
-GTC 9 vii viii ix addressing ancient woodland, dark skies and historic field boundaries
-LAN3 light pollution and rural character
-HOU11 fails to meet the criteria for a traveller site ii iii iv v
It also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 15 - conserving and enhancing the natural environment and Section 3, Policy E - Traveller sites in a Green Belt.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25615
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Lynne Goodchild
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to the site due to the environmental impact a traveller site would have at this location on biodiversity.
There is no access to the site which would mean extensive removal of hedgerows abutting the B2087. This would lead to loss of important connections within the landscape for commuting bats, birds, butterflies and other wildlife causing a reduction in insect diversity and hence foraging opportunities. Our local area has an extensive bat population and birds of prey are regularly seen in the immediate area. The site itself is a haven for wildlife and deer and is adjacent to ancient woodland to the north of the site.
Dark skies and woodlands are intrinsic for our wildlife population.
This would be in conflict with the Local Plan
-GTC8 GTC9 vii viii ix
-LAN2 protection for trees woodlands and hedgerows
-LAN1 safe site access
-ENV5 vi
-Environment Act 2021
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to the site due to the environmental impact a traveller site would have at this location on biodiversity.
There is no access to the site which would mean extensive removal of hedgerows abutting the B2087. This would lead to loss of important connections within the landscape for commuting bats, birds, butterflies and other wildlife causing a reduction in insect diversity and hence foraging opportunities. Our local area has an extensive bat population and birds of prey are regularly seen in the immediate area. The site itself is a haven for wildlife and deer and is adjacent to ancient woodland to the north of the site.
Dark skies and woodlands are intrinsic for our wildlife population.
This would be in conflict with the Local Plan
-GTC8 GTC9 vii viii ix
-LAN2 protection for trees woodlands and hedgerows
-LAN1 safe site access
-ENV5 vi
-Environment Act 2021
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25617
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Lynne Goodchild
Site GYP0002
The National Framework regarding Gypsy and Traveller site recommends numerous factors to be considered when looking for suitable sites. This site does not meet the specified criteria.
One factor being the land should be level and not liable to flooding.
Surface water flooding poses a greater threat to people and property.
The site identified is on clay soil with surface water flooding and the topography of the site would channel the rainwater downhill. The site would require impermeable surfaces to be established which would add to surface water flooding this would then require the site to be raised which would further impact the characteristic of the National Landscape conflicting with Local Policy LAN3.
The current road drainage systems are overwhelmed and lack capacity now, with climate change and increased heavy rainfall this will only increase.
The site conflicts with Local Plan HOU11 and also recommendations Nationally.
Site GYP0002
The National Framework regarding Gypsy and Traveller site recommends numerous factors to be considered when looking for suitable sites. This site does not meet the specified criteria.
One factor being the land should be level and not liable to flooding.
Surface water flooding poses a greater threat to people and property.
The site identified is on clay soil with surface water flooding and the topography of the site would channel the rainwater downhill. The site would require impermeable surfaces to be established which would add to surface water flooding this would then require the site to be raised which would further impact the characteristic of the National Landscape conflicting with Local Policy LAN3.
The current road drainage systems are overwhelmed and lack capacity now, with climate change and increased heavy rainfall this will only increase.
The site conflicts with Local Plan HOU11 and also recommendations Nationally.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25618
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Lynne Goodchild
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to this proposed site.
The National Framework for Gypsy and Traveller sites recommends numerous factors.
Specifically the site would require sufficient lighting on site for safe access and movement through the site and access roads would need to be appropriately illuminated ( Chapter 5, 5.22).
There are no street lights in the vicinity of the proposed site, the site is situated within the National Landscape where dark skies are a valued characteristic of the countryside and contribute to the landscape qualities.
This also conflicts with the Local plan
-LAN3 light pollution
-GTC9 viii dark skies
-LAN1 site access
-ILP Reduction of obtrusive light 2021
The National Framework recommends visual and acoustic privacy for site and near by residents (Chapter 4, 4.1), this could not be achieved at this site. This also conflicts with GTC9, LWL5.
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to this proposed site.
The National Framework for Gypsy and Traveller sites recommends numerous factors.
Specifically the site would require sufficient lighting on site for safe access and movement through the site and access roads would need to be appropriately illuminated ( Chapter 5, 5.22).
There are no street lights in the vicinity of the proposed site, the site is situated within the National Landscape where dark skies are a valued characteristic of the countryside and contribute to the landscape qualities.
This also conflicts with the Local plan
-LAN3 light pollution
-GTC9 viii dark skies
-LAN1 site access
-ILP Reduction of obtrusive light 2021
The National Framework recommends visual and acoustic privacy for site and near by residents (Chapter 4, 4.1), this could not be achieved at this site. This also conflicts with GTC9, LWL5.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25619
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Lynne Goodchild
Site GYP0002
The site has no current essential services and the areas current infrastructure would be put under undue pressure.
The National Framework regarding sites recommends easy access to local services, bus routes, shops and schools (Chapter 3, 3.4). The proposed site is situated on the B2087 with no safe walking routes to local amenities, parts of the road including outside the site area have no footpaths and no street lighting. Despite it being a 40mph road vehicles often greatly exceed this limit making walking an unsafe option to amenities in Ticehurst. The GP surgery is extremely overstretched and it is impossible to register with an NHS dentist.
The limited bus service further compounds the dependency on vehicles which conflicts with the local plan to reduce emissions (4), LWL1, LWL2.
It would be necessary for the local council to safeguard the existing infrastructure/improve as necessary as referenced in INF1 7.7
Site GYP0002
The site has no current essential services and the areas current infrastructure would be put under undue pressure.
The National Framework regarding sites recommends easy access to local services, bus routes, shops and schools (Chapter 3, 3.4). The proposed site is situated on the B2087 with no safe walking routes to local amenities, parts of the road including outside the site area have no footpaths and no street lighting. Despite it being a 40mph road vehicles often greatly exceed this limit making walking an unsafe option to amenities in Ticehurst. The GP surgery is extremely overstretched and it is impossible to register with an NHS dentist.
The limited bus service further compounds the dependency on vehicles which conflicts with the local plan to reduce emissions (4), LWL1, LWL2.
It would be necessary for the local council to safeguard the existing infrastructure/improve as necessary as referenced in INF1 7.7
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25622
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Aubrey Goodchild
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to site GYP0002.
One of the main reasons I am against it is due to the environmental impact it will have on the site. It will destroy wildlife habitats (some being birds of prey and bats) and the entrance to the site will destroy the hedgerow which covers the border of the field. A large portion will be removed to allow the traversal of these large vehicles (Environmental act 2021).
Noise and light pollution will increase from the people and vehicles that would be introduced along with any entrance signage. Congestion on crossroad and Broom Hill is a problem we face and adding more vehicles will make the situation worse.
Mud being brought from the site onto the road is a skidding hazard to all who commute on the road (148, Highways Act 1980)
TIC0039 (Previous site rejection).
Conflicts with GTC8, GTC9 VII, VIII, IX.
Site GYP0002
I am opposed to site GYP0002.
One of the main reasons I am against it is due to the environmental impact it will have on the site. It will destroy wildlife habitats (some being birds of prey and bats) and the entrance to the site will destroy the hedgerow which covers the border of the field. A large portion will be removed to allow the traversal of these large vehicles (Environmental act 2021).
Noise and light pollution will increase from the people and vehicles that would be introduced along with any entrance signage. Congestion on crossroad and Broom Hill is a problem we face and adding more vehicles will make the situation worse.
Mud being brought from the site onto the road is a skidding hazard to all who commute on the road (148, Highways Act 1980)
TIC0039 (Previous site rejection).
Conflicts with GTC8, GTC9 VII, VIII, IX.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25659
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr David Goodchild
GYP0002
I strongly objection for the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site due to the following:
This site has been rejected for housing (TIC0039) as it is located in the High Weald National Landscape which gives the highest level of protection and would be contrary to section 15 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 115 states that Development should be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety and a residual cumulative impact on the road network. The site would definitely impact highway safety where the access would be sited, the B2087 is a busy road with vehicles exceeding the speed limit and there would be further congestion with the adjoining A21.
Draft policy HOU11 states the site should be safely accessible by vehicles towing caravans and large items and providing an adequate turning circle, this could not be achieved at this point on the B2087.
GYP0002
I strongly objection for the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site due to the following:
This site has been rejected for housing (TIC0039) as it is located in the High Weald National Landscape which gives the highest level of protection and would be contrary to section 15 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 115 states that Development should be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety and a residual cumulative impact on the road network. The site would definitely impact highway safety where the access would be sited, the B2087 is a busy road with vehicles exceeding the speed limit and there would be further congestion with the adjoining A21.
Draft policy HOU11 states the site should be safely accessible by vehicles towing caravans and large items and providing an adequate turning circle, this could not be achieved at this point on the B2087.