Comment

Representation ID: 25660

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mr David Goodchild

GYP0002-

I have a strong objection for the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site due to the following:

This site is home to a varied collective of wildlife (https://highweald.org/about-the-landscape/wildlife/),a daily food source for a number of Birds of prey and bats which are protected under the wildlife and countryside Act 1981 and an area frequently visited by deer using the field as a way through from the adjoining ancient woodland. The link above also covers Great Crested Newts which thrive in this diverse area. To develop this land in any way would destroy this finely balanced eco-system.
NPPF guidance note dated 1/5/24 requires developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which will not be achieved with this development.

Comment

Representation ID: 25661

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mr David Goodchild

GYP0002-
I have a strong objection for the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site due to the following:

The site is in the National landscape within the Ticehurst/Flimwell green gap (designated Ticehurst Neighbourhood plan)
Planning policy for traveller sites section 1D & 3E states there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances, there are none.
This site slopes down to the west/north west and would be prominent and encroach on the natural beauty of the countryside (National Policy framework chapter 15) relating to conserving and enhancing the environment. It is on clay soil causing surface water flooding, the national framework criteria states that any site should be on level ground and not prone to flooding.
The site would be in conflict with the local plan-
Policy LAN3 relating to landscape character and light pollution.
Policy LAN2 relating to protection of trees/ woodlands and hedgerows.

Comment

Representation ID: 25672

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Kevin Stocker

The 2 potential sites (GYP0002 and GYP0003) are not suitable sites to accommodate the proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 25691

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Jordan Kay-Mills

GYP0002 / GYP0003

I am strongly opposed to the two proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites (above) which are to be located in Flimwell. Re GYP0002, my understanding is that planning permission has already been rejected twice (TIC0039) for housing so I'm unsure as to why this site would be even considered for a Gypsy and Traveller site when we were told at the meeting 04/06/2024 that the Gypsies, Travellers and travelling Showpeople would also be required to apply for planning permission.

The road is quickly developing a notorious reputation for accidents. This, married with hidden driveways and lack of pavements would make manoeuvring caravans and the like incredible difficult and dangerous.

Any unnecessary amendments to the roads or area to accomodate gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople is more than likely going to damage the AONB and have a negative impact on the beautiful wildlife we are lucky to have here.

Comment

Representation ID: 25692

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Michael Harwood

I wish to voice my concerns over the traveller site proposed for Broom Hill, Flimwell.
This location is in no way suitable for a site such as this. The site is on a dangerous bend, where drivers frequently speed well over the 40 mph limit. Access for any vehicles would be extremely dangerous, especially the bulky slow-moving caravans. There is no pavement.
The meadow itself is a haven for wildlife: I have seen Barn owls, bats, many butterfly species, orchids and other wildflowers, numerous songbird species including nightingales. The area is on a slope and can be quite boggy which is great for nature, not so great for a development such as the one proposed.
The area is in The High Weald Natural Landscape, which means it should be protected at all cost.
The area has been refused for development. It's in open view of properties, including houses in BewlBridgeClose.

Comment

Representation ID: 25722

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Cenydd Milne

GYP0002 - Land north of Broom Hill, Flimwell.
This is an unsuitable location for development of this kind, The land is prone to flooding and therefore unsuitable for any vehicles,
The B2087 is a dangerous road regularly sped along and therefore unsuitable for pedestrian traffic meaning all journeys to and from the site would have to be in vehicles against the LWL2 planning objectives.
Development along this roan further diminishes the "green gap" between Ticehurst and Flimwell.
The local community has no amenities to support a development of this kind with no shops, doctors surgeries or school other than a walk along a very dangerous road.
The B2087 us not suitable for regular use by towed caravans and large vehicles.

Comment

Representation ID: 25723

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Monika Stankovicova

I strongly oppose to the proposed planning applications for a permanent traveller site. I believe this project would have a detrimental impact on our local community, leading to a notable decline in the visual aesthetics and overall charm of the surrounding area and properties. This stems from the fact that it does not conform to the landscape and settlement planning; the dwellings would not exhibit the nationally designated status as a landscape of the highest quality. This area was not seen as suitable for housing development leading to its rejection twice.
This location is a sanctuary for a diverse array of animals and significantly contributes to the well-being of its residents and the ecosystem at large. The proposals do not promote the preservation of the natural landscape and disregard the conservation efforts for the designated AONB. The proposed development would not result in a benefit in environmental and landscape terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 25843

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr NICHOLAS DELAHUNTY

Neither sites GYP0002 or GYP0003 are suitable options for traveller sites:
They are not accessible by walking or cycling safely. Outside the development pathways must be 2m wide and in many places there is no pathway at all. All new or improved off site routes must be safe for cyclists of all abilities, ages, and mobility needs which is not the case.
The Live Well Locally requirement for services within 800m cannot be met with no shops, library, medical facilities, bank or post office or primary school within this distance.
Under Policy LHN6 (ii) the site would have an unacceptable impact on road safety with increased heavy vehicles, unsuitable for towing caravans and ground liable to surface flooding.
As an ANOB and part of the National Landscape, under NPPF it states that this should be protected from any development except under exceptional circumstances. No exceptional circumstances exist in this case.

Comment

Representation ID: 25845

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr NICHOLAS DELAHUNTY

GYP0003 is not suitable as a travellers site:
It cannot satisfy the 20% net gain in biodervisity required by the NPPF or the Mandatory 10% gain required by Statute under the Environment Act 2021.
GYP0003 has already been turned down for planning under TIC0008 and should not be considered as a traveller site.
GYP003 has trees that are protected by Tree Preservation orders.

Comment

Representation ID: 25846

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr NICHOLAS DELAHUNTY

GYP0002 should not be considered as a travellers site as using this space contravenes Policy R2 in the Neighbourhood Plan, infringing upon the green space between Ticehurst and Flimwell
GYP0002 has already been turned down for housing under TIC0003 and should not be considered as a traveller site.

Comment

Representation ID: 25884

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Amy Barnes

We are concerned about TIC0038 and TIC0039 in the supporting evidence based documents. It is unclear as to whether these sites are being considered or not. Given the HELAA commentary and they are located in ANOB an area where there is 'irreplaceable habitat of ecological value' we are hoping it would be against all development principles that these sites are regarded as viable.

Comment

Representation ID: 25911

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr PAUL GASTON

GYP0002- I strongly object to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site as follows:
The site would further close the 'green gap' between the settlements of Ticehurst and Flimwell.
Planning policies for traveller sites state that there should be no development in the National Landscape except in very special circumstances, of which there are none.
Access to the proposed site is hazardous adding to the already perilous act for several driveways of joining the busy road.
The land is subject to frequent flooding.
The loss of habitat for wildlife would be catastrophic and there are many species that would be impacted. Consideration should be being given to protect our National Landscape habitat and biodiversity to stop the rapid decline in wildlife we are experiencing in this country.

Comment

Representation ID: 25973

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Downes

The proposed site for gypsy/travellers GYP0003 fails to meet the minimum criteria for permissible planning as set out in the policy (HOU11). Allowing such development would cause an urbanising effect & permanently destroy what should be & recently was dense woodland, which served as a green space and natural wooded habitat between scattered developments. It is better to have clearly allocated sites for gypsy/travellers with good infrastructure rather than opening up any potential plot which conflicts with policy, already deemed unsuitable for housing, abuts historical buildings and is inherently unsafe. A site, as per the corresponding policies, should be selected which entirely fulfils the minimum criteria set out, is safe, practical & has a good local infrastructure to offer sustainability & support to its occupants. This site does not offer any of these things.

Comment

Representation ID: 25984

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Gina Hellis

The infrastructure we currently have in Flimwell doesn’t support more people dwelling in the area. We do not have any affordable shops for everyday items such as bread, milk etc which are in walking distance. There is no doctors surgery in Flimwell and neither of these appear to be getting addressed before more developments, gypsy or otherwise, are planned. We then have issues with road safety and the impact on our wildlife to seriously consider before any decisions are made. I really feel now is not the time, once we have the capacity to meet all needs then it should be explored.

Comment

Representation ID: 26016

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Alan Wallace

Ref TIC0038 and Housing development plan for land behind the smokers Flimwell.
I object heavily to both of these proposals due to the massive impact on the area, protected trees and habitat for endangered wildlife etc. There is a huge safety risk as no safe walkway or cycle lane along the Hawkhurst Road only highlighted by the recent horrific death outside the smokery at the end of last year. These developments would cause a huge amount of stress to an already settled community. There are no facilities in Flimwell such as medical centres, schools, shops within walking distance and only one bus route which only runs once every hour and is also very unreliable. We are in an AONB area and it should be kept that way for the community and the wildlife alike.

Comment

Representation ID: 26020

Received: 20/07/2024

Respondent: Diane & John Hastings

Number of people: 2

RE Site IDGYP0002

1) We are very concerned to hear about the suggested plans re site IDGY P0002 for a travellers' site encampment, north of Broomhill, Flimwell. this was heard about merely by word of mouth. we feel that many residents have not been fully informed, particularly those without computers or not.... aware.

2) In August this year we will have occupied our house for 43 years. On purchasing this property we were assured that the field behind our house would remain as it was, an area of greenbelt, it is an area of O.N.B. Secondly nobody wanted Flimwell and Ticehurst to become a ribbon development. Please be aware that initially this field was used for grazing for both cattle and sheep for some years.

3) We are extremely concerned about the infrastructure. The private road leading to Ketley Wood Lodge only is suitable for single-file traffic. Therefore it is completely unsuitable for large vehicles especially those belonging to travellers.

4) There is no pavement here - likewise vey little pavement from here to Ticehurst B2087. Therefore hazardous.

5) There is no way that other roads could be constructed as it would mean cutting down trees and woodland - not environmentally friendly!

6) Where would the sewerage go??At the bottom of the field is a narrow stream. The field is a permanent risk of inundation.

7) As this field has already been deemed as unsuitable for housing - requiring sewerage and infrastructure - why should this be suitable for travellers?

8) Apart from the narrow lane there are no amenities for local shops medical services unless one travels to Hawkhurst or Ticehurst - a few miles away.

9) Transport services are sparce - an hourly bus service is in place but the nearest train stations are miles away, Etchingham, Stonegate and Wadhurst.

10) Environmentally this proposal would be a disaster in the respect of the protection of wildlife.

11) Not only are there rare species of protected animals: hedgehogs, bats and shrews; to the extent that in certain areas in Ticehurst special bat boxes were constructed by mandate, but there are also a considerable selection of wild birds including buntings, kestrels, buzzards, barn owls, falcons and other varieties of smaller species.

12) One must also consider light pollution which can endanger these species particularly as light encroaches towards the reservoir which would be against all environmental issues regarding nocturnal life.



We conclude that we understand your predicament however such areas of green belt land, O.N.B. should be protected especially as there are no adequate amenities available on this site.

We feel you should look at surrounding brown sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 26084

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Christopher Harrison

GYP0002 and GYP0003

To seek to impose by far the greater proportion of RDC’s requirement for traveller pitches on Flimwell is at best expedient and at worst cynical. This is difficult to comprehend given that both sites are in the High Weald National Landscape and have previously been refused for housing development. Their inclusion even at this stage, without any site investigations, has caused disquiet and possibly building resentment unnecessarily between the settled and traveller community. The proposed use of these sites is not consistent with any possibility of peaceful co-existence between the two communities and the destruction of habitat, important eco-systems and the impact on ancient woodlands is likely to cause ongoing resentment.

Without quoting all of the policy references previously referred to by others, any reasonable interpretation of both Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the National Planning Policy Framework would exclude both sites from any further consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 26164

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Miss Sarah Owen

Concerns about the proposed traveller site at Broom Hill, Flimwell:

• Environmental impact as this land is within the bounds of the High Weald National Landscape and is home to a host of wildlife. Next to a public footpath which is enjoyed for the scenic walk.
• Adjacent to ancient woodland
• Prone to flooding
• Not ideally placed to meet the needs of the Traveller community. Flimwell does not have a school, shopping facilities or doctors' surgery and is not in safe walking distance to local services in Ticehurst. In addition, the local doctors surgery in Ticehurst and Wadhurst is not able to provide the level of care it should to the existing residents as appointments are virtually impossible to get, even in an emergency.
• The field has been refused planning for housing in the past due to, amongst other things, trying to protect green spaces between Ticehurst and Flimwell as per the Neighbourhood Plan and preferences of the existing settled community.
• Cannot be safely accessed by vehicles towing caravans as it is on a bend on the road where vehicles often travel way above the 40 mile an hour speed limit.

Comment

Representation ID: 26167

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Gemma Smith

I wish to address several concerns regarding site GYP0002.

The proposed site is located within an AONB where development must aim to conserve and enhance its natural features, which seems improbable in this instance. The proposed site includes six pitches, each accommodating two caravans, plus other vehicles, business equipment, and animals. Given the potential number of people the caravans can hold, plus all the additional entourage, I cannot fathom how this will not have a detrimental effect on our beautiful village.

Another major concern is a serious lack of safe pathways to walk to school or between villages. Therefore this development would likely aggravate traffic issues and heighten the risks for pedestrians. Flimwell already experiences significant traffic problems and recent incidents have highlighted the dangers. Furthermore, any large vehicles trying to access this site may cause further issue. These issues need to be fixed before anything further is considered.

Living in the AONB rightly makes it difficult for residential development and we have seen recent cases where applications have been rejected on this basis (PP/U1430/W/23/3330956). We are therefore unsure as to how the proposed sites can possibly be entertained.

If this site does go ahead, this will undermine the AONB protection and I dread think of the repercussions this may have on future applications for development. I'm fearful for our local environment and it's beauty.

Comment

Representation ID: 26169

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Sue Lomas Bullivant

Objections to GYP002:
In HEELA as a rejected site already
No footpath to school, doctors, shop therefore increase use of cars against 'Green To The Core' policy and Policy LWL2
Substantial ancient woodland to the north - important for biodiversity -site against Policy GTC7
Land is boggy, floods - unsuitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 26194

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Swann Fairrie Associates

This site was not suitable for housing so why is the site acceptable for Gypsey, Travellers and Show people? First, access does not exist and the hedgerow must be cut for the visibility splay on site to be entered from a busy B2089 with 40 mph traffic on a blind bend. Secondly, the eastern boundary is a privately owned, narrow track and to create access to the site would mean destruction of the ancient, assart field system. The site slopes to the north and northwest so terracing is necessary for the many caravans proposed and is boggy at the north end. Creating mobile home sites here is wholesale destruction to the National landscape. Creating 6 pitches onto such a site would mean a loss of the entire open green space. Why is Flimwell targeted for 11 of 14 proposed Gypsy, Traveller pitches? Nymbism from Bexhill?

Comment

Representation ID: 26353

Received: 17/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

Must ensure that the policy wording is clear and explanatory text is not open to interpretation. Safe access as defined by Highways? Very important for clarity to be given on balance of need versus National landscape damage. Nothing in the policy regarding potential alternative provision. Provision needs to be made to protect further the National Landscape. Small scale being 10 pitches is very large, if site has potential to scale up then too much with no enforcement to back up policy. If not regulated can become a huge problem. Increase of application recently, more efforts need to be put in to find suitable alternative sites. Open sites should be viewed with caution with clear limitations within the site to stop ongoing expansion.

Comment

Representation ID: 26541

Received: 20/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Luke Strawson

Number of people: 2

As a resident of Rother District, I would appreciate it if you could consider a few observations
regarding the interim report the council has issued on this matter.
We live in Flimwell, adjacent to the proposed traveller site GYP0002. I am surprised that this site
is being considered in the summary of environmental constraints, as mentioned on page 6 and
in appendix 1 of your report.
First and foremost, this site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
This designation is meant to protect and preserve areas of significant natural and scenic value.
The fundamental characteristics of an AONB, such as tranquillity, wildlife protection, and
preservation of vegetation, should take precedence in planning decisions. I am not aware of any
exceptions that would justify overriding these critical attributes. Additionally, any development
in this area must conserve and enhance its natural features, which is unlikely to be the outcome
in this case. The proposed site includes six pitches, each capable of accommodating two
caravans, along with other vehicles, business equipment, and animals. This setup poses a
considerable threat to local wildlife and livestock, potentially leading to material damage within
the AONB.
There have been unsuccessful planning applications in this area, where the relevant points have
been considered. Other applications, not specifically related to a traveller site but still aƯecting
the AONB, have also been denied. Many of the issues addressed in one such application and
appeal, particularly the appeal decision related to Old Vineyard Road, are pertinent here. This
appeal was successfully defended by the district council, and the detailed points in the
inspector's decision should be considered (PP/U1430/W/23/3330956), additionally allowing this
site to move forward would conflict with the 2018-2028 Ticehurst neighbourhood plan.
Furthermore, the site’s proximity to ancient woodland increases the risk of surface water
flooding, as this area helps manage local runoƯ and supports diverse wildlife. Additionally,
historic field boundaries and a nearby public footpath contribute to the area’s environmental
and historical value, making it crucial to carefully consider these factors in any development
plans.
We also have concerns about the possibility of property speculation, where an organisation
could propose developing a financially unviable site within an AONB for commercial profit.
I would appreciate it if you could thoroughly consider these points. The environmental and
community impacts of the proposed traveller site are significant, and it is crucial that all
relevant factors are considered to ensure a balanced and informed decision,
Careful consideration is essential for preserving the integrity of our community and the natural
beauty of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 26557

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Graham

Our next door neighbours, in Berners Hill Flimwell, were refused Planning permission for a Menage in their 1.5 acre field, the reason given by RDC, was that it was ‘not in keeping with the countryside’. The field which in known as GYP002, is the now being proposed by RDC for a travellers site, how can this possibly be more in keeping with the countryside than a Menage?

I look forward to a reply from RDC with eager anticipation, as if this isn’t blatant discrimination tell me what is!!

Comment

Representation ID: 26600

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

24. More clarity should be provided about any adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area. Inspectors appeal decision on land on the Pashley Road sets a good measure of considerations.
25. Provision needs to be made to ensure the requirements for the ‘safe access’ doesn’t undermine the AONB or necessitate the removal of rural hedging.
26. Small scale should be 5 and under not 10. Clarity should be provided on measures to ensure that sites cannot be expanded.
27. Rother have failed to follow their own policy/intention of providing (via compulsory purchase) a large site to negate the need for smaller sites within the AONB. This policy should be included in the plan to ensure compliance by the authors of this document.

Comment

Representation ID: 26679

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ben Morris

I am a resident in Flimwell and would like to pass on my comments in regards to the proposed travellers site opposite Berner's Hill.

I strongly disagree with this proposal as would have a detrimental impact on the AONB and I find it hard to believe this is even being considered.

I also object to the additional vehicles this would add to coming on and off of the B2087. The road is already busy at the best of times and this will only add to the possibility of accidents.

I hope you take onboard these comments and I am sure the many other objections that would have been submitted by other residents of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 26829

Received: 31/07/2024

Respondent: Northern Parishes Group

74) The group invites two changes to this important policy, which has been misused recently. The phrase, ‘playing particular regard to the High Weald National Landscape’ fails to give sufficient protection to it. The group suggests there should be a requirement as follows. ‘New development will only be granted where there is no significant harm to the High Weald National Landscape.’ Further it should be made clear that gypsy sites must be for those with travelling vehicles and not just for housing.
75) The group also suggests there should be a new sub paragraph, stating:
‘vii) Light pollution is kept to the minimum.’

Comment

Representation ID: 26874

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Lloyd

Comments submitted in relation to:

GYP003 Hawkhurst Road
Flimwell 0.23 The Hollies

TIC0039
Land Broom Hill
Flimwell 2.91

TIC0008/
TIC0027

Tree preservation order protected
Adjoins Wildlife site and ancient woodland
2 previous planning refusals for housing
Enforcement notice pending for caravan removal
Too small for development considered through the HELAA
Adjacent to listed building
Risk of conflict between traveller and opposed settled communities

Adjacent to Ancient woodland
Risks of flooding
Ecologicical impact. Detrimental to presence of extensive wildlife, flora and fauna. Existence of rare protected Bats, Newts, Frogs, Toads, Snakes, Birds along with species of Deer.
Historical boundaries
Extensive views and picturesque setting.Impact on character of the landscape and visual amenity
Inadeqate highways system to cater for large vehicles with notoriously dangerous stretches of road

Ancient Trees
Risk of river pollution
Bog land not suitable for building
Insufficient footpaths or suitablity for wheeling/walking/cycling. No facilities (Doctors/Shops/schools) required by RDC directives

All sites subject to Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. High Weald National Landscape (AONB) Protected. Nat.planning framework Section 15 Para 180-186 which excludes development except under exceptional circumstances, requiring any developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain. There are no exceptional circustances and therefore any building would contravene Government and Council directives.
Undue pressure on essential services (water/sewage and waste). No local infrastructure (shops/school/Doctors).


We recently moved to Flimwell to retire, seeking the benefits of country living and relaxation. Particularly the local places or interest and activity, such as Bedgbury Pinetum, Bewl Water, extensive woodlands and walks/cycling areas. We cannot see the logic in trying to shoehorn Traveller sites and housing into a quiet settled village that does not have infrastructure to accomodate them rather than prositioning, as other districts have done, sites and housing that provide suitable and adequate facilities near and accessible to larger towns and conurbations - also for the benefit of the travellers and low income families.


Frankly your Green to the Core objective that "emphasises the need to consider the impact of our planning decisions on the climate emergency, biodiversity crisis and the High Weald National Landscape" seems not to be reality.

Comment

Representation ID: 26944

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Brede Parish Council

Disagree. The Policy Statement says “Permission will be granted for Gypsy,
Traveller and Travelling Showpeople when all of the following criteria are met
as relevant:” The explanatory text says “In all cases, the location requirements
of such sites will be similar to those for conventional housing sites.” The Policy
should therefore say that “Permission will be considered subject to normal
planning requirements and the following additional criteria.”

Comment

Representation ID: 27137

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Westfield Parish Council

See points 188-192 in the attached submission.