Comment

Representation ID: 27267

Received: 21/07/2024

Respondent: Swann Fairrie Associates

Regarding the above site to the south of the A268 (GYP0003), I object on the basis that it is not large enough for 5 pitches. It is also near ancient woodlands and has trees with TPO's.

Comment

Representation ID: 27268

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Dan Kirkby

Regarding sites GYP002 and GYP003

1. Both sites are in the National Landscape (formerly known as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and this has the highest level of protection.

2. Rother District Council has 80% of its land in the National Landscape. Planning policy for traveller sites states:-

Section 3, Policy E This requires liaison with adjoining authorities that do not have such high levels of restrictions and this should be done. Policy E states that there should be no development in a green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances and of course there are none.

3. National Planning Policy Framework - this is the overarching legislation that planning for traveller sites must take into account.

Section 15 applies Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment Paragraphs 180 -186 in summary cover all the provisions to protect National Landscape (AONB) from any development except under exceptional circumstances of which there are none.

The most recent NPPF guidance note dated 01.05.24 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, this cannot of course be achieved with the loss of the valuable habitat that would inevitably occur with either proposal.

4. Seacox Cockers Site (Now being called The Hollies) There was an appeal decision on 26.04.2024 when housing development was dismissed. One of the reasons given by the Inspector was the impact on surrounding listed buildings (the settled community).

5. We need to protect in our National Landscape habitat and biodiversity to try and arrest the rapid decline in our wildlife.

6. Given that there are no exceptional circumstances, neither of the sites proposed would meet the tests included in both Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the National Planning Policy Framework. It is therefore assumed that with any reasonable interpretation of these policies both applications will be dismissed. Their inclusion, even at this consultation stage, therefore has only sought to create unnecessary distress to the settled community and in probability increased tension between the settled and traveller communities.

7. The site at Broomhill is unsustainable - with no footpath to the village and a dangerous, fast road between it and the village. There are no services, shops or other infrastructure, such as street lighting in existence. It remote and inaccessible for families, those with young children or the infirm

8. The sites have been deemed by Planning Committee and inspectors as unsuitable for housing - are Gypsies and/or Travellers - less entitled to decent safe places to live?

Comment

Representation ID: 27309

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Wadhurst 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: 27334

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jan Harrison

GYP0003 The Hollies, formerly known as Seacox Cockers, The Mount, Flimwell. Proposed 5 traveller pitches.


1. This site is in the National Landscape, formerly known as the AONB which has the highest level of protection.

2. Appeal decision: On 26.04.2024 the appeal for housing development was dismissed. The reasons given by the Inspector included the impact on neighbouring listed buildings and any site lines and vision splay are not within the ownership of the site. The inspector looked past the fact that the site is illegally occupied with caravans.

3. Planning policy for traveller sites section 3 policy E: This requires liaison with adjoining authorities that do not have high level of restriction and this should be done. The policy also states that there should be no development in a green belt (National Landscape), except in very special circumstances and of course there are none.

4. National Planning Policy Framework: Section 15 applies – conservation enhancement for the natural environment. Paragraphs 180 – 186 in summery cover all the provisions to protect the National Landscape (AONB) from development except under exceptional circumstances of which there are none. As recent as 1st May 2024 an NPPF directive requires all development to have a biodiversity net gain. With the current occupation of this site this has already been massively reversed.

5. Given that there are no exceptional circumstances this site would not meet the tests included in both the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the NPPF. It is therefore assumed that this site would be rejected and under these circumstances and if the appeal against the enforcement notice served on the occupier is dismissed then Rother District Council would immediately proceed with such measures that are necessary where this is possible to return the land to its former condition.

Comment

Representation ID: 27335

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jan Harrison

GYP0002 Land north of Broomhill Flimwell. Proposed Traveller Site 6 pitches


1. This site is in the National Landscape (formerly AONB) and within the Ticehurst/Flimwell green gap as designated by the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan.

2. 80% of Rother District Council land is protected in the National Landscape and both the policy for traveller sites and the overarching National Planning Policy Framework requires liaison with adjoining authorities that do not have such an imposition; this is included in both the Policy for Traveller Sites, section 3 policy E and in the NPPF.

3. Both policies also include for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, NPPF section 15 applies, paragraphs 180 – 186 and within the Traveller Sites it requires that there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances and of course there are none.

4. A more recent directive dated 1st May 2024 by the NPPF requires that all developments achieve a biodiversity net gain. The site represents very important habitat immediately adjacent to ancient woodlands and accordingly this requirement could not possibly be achieved. Although this site has already been refused planning permission for housing development, should it be approved then of course it will provide for more than the 6 pitches currently required and an ongoing facility which will inevitably be wholly disproportionate with the settled community.

5. With consistent interpretation of policy, the planning history, its impact on biodiversity and important habitat this site should be rejected.

Comment

Representation ID: 27431

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Nigel Harker

Ref - GYP0002 - Objections to the proposed GTTS site

We oppose the proposed development. Our rationale is that we expect Rother DC to apply the same logic to this proposed development as they have when rejecting other applications along the same stretch of road between Ticehurst and Flimwell. Details set out below. We don’t see why this development should be considered any differently to any other application that Rother DC would review and on the basis of consistency with prior decisions, we expect Rother DC to refuse planning for this proposal.


Proposed policy HUO11.iii. Requires that “Development should safeguard intrinsic and distinctive landscape character and scenic beauty, paying particular regard to the conservation of the High Weald National Landscape and undeveloped coastline, and be supported by landscaping proposals appropriate to the local landscape character.”

Policy R2 of the Ticehurst local Plan (use of Development Boundaries) to maintain green gaps between settlements - Development within the area shown as the Ticehurst — Flimwell Green Gap in Map 9 will be carefully controlled and only be allowed where the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area.

For example, a development at an adjacent site has previously been refused. (RR/2015/704/P). In refusing Rother District Council reasoned that
“ 1
The application site is open agricultural land located outside the development boundary for Flimwell as defined in the Rother District Local Plan (2006) by saved policy DS3. Policies OSS2 and RA3 of the adopted Rother District Local Plan (2014) - Core Strategy state that development boundaries around settlements wil continue to differentiate between areas where most forms of new development would be acceptable and where they would not.

The Inspector appointed by The Secretary of State heard an appeal on 7th July 2016 - Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/W/15/3140423
Land between Rosemary Lane & Broom Hill, Flimwell.

At point 10 the inspector states:
10. “…I consider that the appeal site provides a welcome relief to the ribbon development between Flimwell and Ticehurst, which I agree with the Council, is in danger of compromising the gap between the two settlements. It also, in my view, forms
an important part of the rural setting of the village when approaching from the
west before the more urban confines of the village are encountered.”

At point 13 the inspector states:
“… further compromise the existing gap between the settlements of Ticehurst and Flimwell. For these reasons, the scheme
would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and
to the special qualities of the AONB.”
This site lies within the green gap between Ticehurst and Flimwell and is therefore unsuitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 27446

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Network Rail

Network Rail note the proposed Policy approach in relation to GTTS. Should any proposed
sites be close to the railway, Network Rail would like to work with the Council to mitigate
the impacts of rail movements close to the sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 27478

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Michael Pape

Objection to site GYP002:
Contravenes policy R2 in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood plan, maintaining green space between settlements.

As stated by Rother District Council in the draft plan “This is a large ridge-top site within the countryside, west of the built form of Flimwell, forming part of a probable medieval assart, with historic field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north. The site slopes down to the west/north-west, with extensive views to the north-west including of Bewl Water reservoir. Its development would be prominent in long views, appearing as an encroachment into the countryside, impacting on the landscape and character of the National Landscape. Additionally, the site is within the Ticehurst- Flimwell Green Gap, designated through the Neighbourhood Plan, where the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to carefully control development and only allows it when the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area. A development of the scale considered through the HELAA in this location would not meet these objectives”.

This would equally apply to any proposal for a site identified for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people.

Planning policy for traveller sites Sections 1D and 3E states “there should be no development in green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances”, in this case there are none.

National Planning Policy Framework Section 15 paragraphs 180 to 194 apply conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, specifically paragraph 188 the presumption in favour of a sustainable development does not apply with a plan or project that is likely to have a significant effect on a habitat site.

In addition, National Planning Policy Framework Directive of 1st May 2024 states “All developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which would be impossible to achieve at this site. The site is waterlogged for a large part of the year and provides exceptional habitat adjacent to ancient woodlands.

The proposed site does not comply with the Live Well Locally policy LWL2 - Facilities and Services, in that many of the facilities required are not immediately and safely accessible from the site.

Access and egress to the site would be on a bend where the B2087 Berners Hill meets Broom Hill. Despite speed restrictions this is a particularly busy and hazardous stretch of road, and vehicles continually exceed the speed limit.

Comment

Representation ID: 27479

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Michael Pape

Objection to site GYP003:

The site is within the High Weald National Landscape. Subject to a site-wide Tree to be completed. Identifying sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people in Rother District Local Plan 2020-2040 Regulation 18 Version 7 Preservation Order. Contains Priority Habitat (deciduous woodland). Adjacent to ancient woodland and a Local Wildlife Site. Adjacent to a Grade II listed building.

This site had an appeal for four houses dismissed under APP/U1430/W/23/3321909, and an enforcement notice issued for the removal of a static mobile home and caravan.

Settled community housing has been refused at appeal for this site, this would apply equally to a traveller site.

This site is in an inappropriate location for all the heritage and landscape reasons as stated in the Inspectors decision against housing on the site.

The site is adjacent to ancient woodland and a local Wildlife site.

The Inspector, in dismissing the appeal for housing at this site, was noticeably clear that extensive development in the form of dwellings and parking, and further removal of trees from this site ‘would lead to a substantial and unduly harmful change to the character of the site’.

He went onto say that development on this site would prevent the rejuvenation of woodland trees which provide the distinctive tree character and appearance of the area. Importantly, development on this site would not ‘conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of this section of the High Weald/National landscape.

Access and egress to the site is onto the A268 Hawkhurst Road after the brow of the hill coming from the traffic lights at the junction of the A21. Despite speed restrictions this is a particularly busy and hazardous stretch of road, and vehicles continually exceed the speed limit.

National Planning Policy Framework Directive of 1st May 2024 states “All developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain which would be impossible to achieve at this site.

The proposed site does not comply with the Live Well Locally policy LWL2 - Facilities and Services, in that many of the facilities required are not immediately and safely accessible from the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 27516

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

See attached submission regarding sites TIC0038/GYP0003 and TIC0039/GYP0002.

Comment

Representation ID: 27666

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Ms Kathryn Trochimiuk

See full text submission relating to site GYP0003 - The Hollies, Flimwell with concerns about:
1) Suitability of location;
2) Impacts to the High Weald National Landscape (AONB);
3) Impacts to biodiversity;
4) Water and sewage infrastructure;
5) Proximity to local services;
5) Access to the site and highways safety;
6) Impacts to the Green Gap designated in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan; and
7) Impacts to nearby Listed Buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 27713

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Zoe Mountier

I would like to also make the following Points/objections specifically relating to the unsuitability of the field referred to in the Local Plan specified as GYP0002 (on slide 10, “Identifying Sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople”) and TIC0039 (on p66, HELAA-Part 2- CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-Compressed document), respectively.

• The field (TIC0039) has already been prevously been marked as unsuitable for a housing development , please see document; HELAA-PART 2-CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-COMPRESSED and therefore should not now be considered suitable for a traveller’s site encampment (GYP0002) for the reasons given in that judgment by RDC but I would also like to raise the following additional points:
• The land, as well as the ancient woodland that surrounds it, is home to home to many speices of native wildlife and rare plants. The area is currently home to barn owls, kestrels, woodpeckers, falcons, buzzards and other wild birds and also some small animals such as shrews and hedgehogs.

• The field is prone to flooding and becomes very waterlogged and boggy at the bottom, every winter.

• The field is at a steep incline.
  The access points to the field would be dangerous, as it joins a 40mph road that is situated on a corner, on a hill, and would be dangerous not  only for those emerging from the site but also to existing road users.
• The private road that provides access to Ketley Wood Lodge is too narrow to sustain large traveller vehicles.

• There is a lack of basic amenities to support a travelling community in Flimwell. Apart from the artisan smokery shop and an ice parlor, there are no food shops within a mile radis. There is also no Doctor’s surgeries, dentists, chemists, post offices and garages for fuel in Flimwell. And with no footpaths, the only way to access these services safely is via car as also public transport services are at a minimal in the area. A primary school is also only assesable via road in the same manor.
•          It is in an area that is mimalising light pollution with litte or no street lighting
• Difficult/impossible to safeguard the protection of the ancient woodland from, pollution, fires and general damage and this would have a catastrophic effect upon resident wildlife.

I understand and empathise that accommodation has to be made for new housing and traveller sites in Rother, but please focus on the brown field areas first where the infrustraure is in place and only consider areas of green belt in case of urgent need.

Comment

Representation ID: 27723

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Sands

Site GYP0002:

I would like to draw Rother District Councils attention to their OWN officers Report and Decision dated 22 December 2023 in the Planning Application RR/2023/2033/P which concerned an application for the Construction of a sand school in the ADJACENT field to the subject land at

"Land north of Broom Hill, Flimwell, Ticehurst Parish"

I quote from the concluding paragraph of YOUR OWN Officers Report dated 22/1/23:

"Conclusion

In Rother a balance needs to be struck between meeting the desires of the equestrian community and at the same time safeguarding the intrinsic value and locally rural character and landscape features of the countryside. This is especially the case in the High Weald AONB, whose conservation and enhancement are afforded great weight. The High Weald landscape is particularly vulnerable to development with equestrian facilities such as sand schools not always easily accommodated without some impact on the fields, small woodlands and farmstead meadows which make up the essential character of the AONB.

In this case it is considered that the proposed sand school would be harmful to the rural character of the countryside and the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB. The proposal therefore conflicts with local and national policies relating to the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes, particularly those designated for their landscape and scenic beauty. As such, planning permission should be refused."

Obviously the 2 parcels of land are not linked by anything other than their proximity to one another but it seems that a precent was set and Rother are obliged to consider GYP0002 in the same light of the decision they themselves reached in RR/2023/2033/P

Comment

Representation ID: 27725

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr John Monaghan

Berners Hill Traveller site TIC0039
Our area is one of outstanding natural beauty. However, we were not permitted to include a window at the front of a recent extension to our unlisted property. Thus we disagree with the land earmarked as a potential traveller site, or any development for that matter. The proposal contradicts R2 policy in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood Plans to maintain green spaces between settlements and the same site features in the HEELA as a rejected site as it does not meet RDC’s objectives due to historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north. Furthermore, the site slopes to west – northwest so it would be a conspicuous sight and encroach on the countryside.

Land at Seacoxers for traveller site TIC0038
This is covered by a woodland tree preservation order and abuts ancient woodland to the south. The land owner has made two unsuccessful attempts to gain planning - for two properties and four properties, respectively - both of which were refused and then dismissed at appeal: in breach of tree preservation order; in breach of dwelling on site without permission; in breach of forming an access on to the highway without permission from ESCC. In the HEELA assessment the site is deemed unsuitable for dwellings.

‘Live Well Locally’ Policy LWL2 Facilities and Services
The current infrastructure does not support further development. One main concern is the lack of paving and speed restrictions along the stretch of road through the village. The B2087 and A268 have a history of serious accidents owing to the speed at which vehicles enter the area after leaving the A21 (one of the UK’s most dangerous roads). Development of an area in which residents rely heavily on the use of cars will also increase congestion (there is only one bus an hour until early evening). This goes against the ‘Green to the Core’ policies of the draft local plan.

Policy GTC7 Local Nature Recovery Area
Development should not 'harm or adversely affect an area or areas identified as being important for biodiversity.'

Policy GTC8
These proposals fail to demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan. Development should be small-scale and in keeping with the settlement pattern, this includes back-fill which has always been resisted, especially with the proximity to Bedgebury.

Comment

Representation ID: 27767

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council

This policy needs more detail.

Comment

Representation ID: 27792

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council

We agree with your assessment that Redlands Lane Traveller site in our Parish should not be expanded. However, could Policy HOU11 mean that this site could grow in the future regardless of the fact it is not identified in the Plan, if there is space for it to expand? We would not welcome this development as it is a very settled site, with families living there for a long time.

Comment

Representation ID: 27853

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Payal and Vivek Vishwanath

Number of people: 2

We currently reside in Flimwell, East Sussex and have attended a few meetings about the proposed travellers site that might be built in the Flimwell area. Having lived here for more than 11 years, we do not support this plan for the following reasons -

1. Environmental Concerns:
The fields are currently a habitat for wildlife and rare plants. Presence of wild animals, birds and hedgehogs are covered under “Protected species and development. Further housing development will cause harm.

2. Accessibility & Safety Issues:
Lack of safe road access on B2087, hazardous for pedestrians due to bends.Narrow private road to Ketley Wood Lodge unsuitable for large vehicles.Unsafe for children to walk to Ticehurst primary school.Limited hourly bus services and distant train access in Stonegate and Etchingham.

3. Lack of Amenities:
No food shops in Flimwell, nearest groceries in Ticehurst (1 mile) and Hawkhurst (4 miles).No closeby doctor’s surgeries, dentists, chemists, post offices, or garages.

4. Site Viability:
Field on an incline, prone to flooding.High costs for basic infrastructure like hard-standing, gas, electric, and water. Potential issues with rubbish collection, sewage, noise/light pollution, and grassland fires impacting wildlife.

Broader Considerations-

1. National Planning Priorities:
National Labour Government prioritises brown-field sites for development.Refined definition of “grey-belt” land focuses on lower-quality green-belt land previously used for industrial purposes or car parking. Hence a green site like this shouldn't be used for housing development.

2. RDC’s Local Plan (2020-2040):
Proposes development on prime green-belt land, including ancient woodland and natural wildlife areas.Needs reconsideration in line with national guidelines.

3. Recommendations:Avoid using prime green-belt fields for development.Focus on brown-field areas first, then grey-belt areas if necessary.

I hope the above gives a true picture and reasons of why we are not supportive of the housing development in the area. If you have any further questions on the above, please feel free to email us.

Comment

Representation ID: 27869

Received: 15/07/2024

Respondent: Mr P J Halden

Proposed gypsy and travellers site at field reference TIC0039/GYP0002
1) You have rejected this site for housing development so it should not be suitable for the itinerant population. Either resident types use the same facilities and make the same demands upon the area.
2) In view of the high traffic volume on the B2079 further access points on this road are undesirable.
3) Nearby planning applications ref RR/2015/704/P and RR/2023/2298/P both failed in part owing to the lack of footpaths into Ticehurst for shopping and school purposes.
4) The local parish neighbourhood plan emphasises the importance of not diminishing the remaining green field sites between the villages of Ticehurst and Flimwell. The proposed use of this land, with its long reaching views over Bewl reservoir, would be in contradiction of that objective.

Comment

Representation ID: 27910

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Natasha and Stuart Hodges

Number of people: 2

Points specific to the unsuitability of the field referred to in the Local Plan specified as GYP0002 (on slide 10, “Identifying Sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople”) and TIC0039 (on p66, HELAA-Part 2- CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-Compressed document), respectively.

The field identified as TIC0039, originally deemed unsuitable for housing development in the HELAA-PART 2-CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-COMPRESSED document, should not be considered for a traveller's site encampment as outlined in GYP0002 by RDC. Apart from the reasons already provided in the RDC's judgment, further factors contribute to its unsuitability. If inspected by the County Ecologist for East Sussex, the field would likely be recognized as a thriving habitat for natural wildlife and rare plants, warranting protection for environmental and ecological reasons. Anecdotal evidence highlights the diverse range of wildlife, including barn owls, kestrels, woodpeckers, and various smaller birds residing in the surrounding ancient woodland and gardens, emphasizing the need to safeguard such areas as per YouGov guidance on protected species.

The choice of this field by RDC does not adequately consider the recommendations in the "Planning Policy for Traveller’s Sites," possibly raising concerns among the travelling communities targeted for the site. Issues such as insufficient safe road access, lack of basic amenities in Flimwell, and the field's unsuitable terrain further support its unsuitability for development. The absence of infrastructure to support a travelling community, coupled with the field's flood-prone nature and lack of essential facilities, make it unviable for development without significant investment and potential environmental consequences.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the need to accommodate travelling communities and new housing developments, it is essential to prioritize protecting green-belt land and select development sites with adequate infrastructure. The national government's focus on brown-field sites for traveller compounds and housing developments should guide RDC's decisions, especially considering the preservation of prime green-belt areas with ancient woodlands and wildlife habitats. RDC's proposed developments should be reassessed in line with these guidelines, avoiding prime green-belt fields unless no suitable alternatives are available. Emphasizing brown-field areas over green-belt fields, with grey areas considered only in urgent cases, is crucial to ensure sustainable and responsible development in Rother.

Comment

Representation ID: 28084

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Helen Kirkby

Re Sites GYP0002 and GYP0003

I do not feel that either of these two sites would be suitable for the following reasons listed below:

Both these sites hold the highest level of protection being situated in the National Landscape, therefore would be wholly unsuitable.

1. Both sites are in the National Landscape (formerly known as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and this has the highest level of protection.

2. Rother District Council has 80% of its land in the National Landscape. Planning policy for traveller sites states:-

Section 3, Policy E This requires liaison with adjoining authorities that do not have such high levels of restrictions and this should be done. Policy E states that there should be no development in a green belt (National Landscape) except in very special circumstances and of course there are none.

3. National Planning Policy Framework - this is the overarching legislation that planning for traveller sites must take into account.

Section 15 applies Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment Paragraphs 180 -186 in summary cover all the provisions to protect National Landscape (AONB) from any development except under exceptional circumstances of which there are none.

The most recent NPPF guidance note dated 01.05.24 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, this cannot of course be achieved with the loss of the valuable habitat that would inevitably occur with either proposal.

4. Seacox Cockers Site (Now being called The Hollies) There was an appeal decision on 26.04.2024 when housing development was dismissed. One of the reasons given by the Inspector was the impact on surrounding listed buildings (the settled community).

5. We need to protect in our National Landscape habitat and biodiversity to try and arrest the rapid decline in our wildlife.

6. Given that there are no exceptional circumstances, neither of the sites proposed would meet the tests included in both Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the National Planning Policy Framework. It is therefore assumed that with any reasonable interpretation of these policies both applications will be dismissed. Their inclusion, even at this consultation stage, therefore has only sought to create unnecessary distress to the settled community and in probability increased tension between the settled and traveller communities.

7. The site at Broomhill is unsustainable - with no footpath to the village and a dangerous, fast road between it and the village. There are no services, shops or other infrastructure, such as street lighting in existence. It is remote and inaccessible for families, those with young children or the infirm and could prove to be highly dangerous putting life at risk.

8. The sites have been deemed by a Planning Committee and inspectors as unsuitable for housing - are Gypsies and/or Travellers - less entitled to decent safe places to live?

Comment

Representation ID: 28174

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Guy Mawhinney

Strong objection to GYP0003

The site does not meet any of Rother’s basic criteria for access to education, medical or other facilities that would be minimum requirements..

This site is non-residential land which has a history of failed planning applications and appeals.

All of the grounds on which both Rother and the Planning Inspectorate refused the planning applications and appeals apply to consideration of this land as a traveller site, as below:

• Location (outside village development area)
• AONB (and wildlife protection)
• Site-wide Tree Protection Order
• Character and appearance of the area
• Close proximity to, and visibility from, other houses
• Impact on local community, environment and facilities
• Next door to listed building
• Access to services and facilities
• Access to road and highway safety

It is totally unsuitable as a traveller site. I would urge the council to dismiss it completely from consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 28224

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Ms Rosemary Hill

Number of people: 2

Both of the sites in Flimwell are unsuitable for and shouldn’t be considered as suitable for the G/T Community. Flimwell has no facilities to walk to, there is no school, doctors surgery, shops and an irregular and unreliable bus service. The road is busy with vehicles travelling at high speed. There is no continuous pavement to either Hawkhurst or Ticehurst.

The site at The Hollies (GYP0003) has been turned down for numerous planning applications and all the same reasons should apply to this site. The G/T communities need the same facilities. There are TP orders on the site and it’s adjacent to a listed property on one side and has a property the other side. The other site GYP0002 is adjacent to ancient woodland also, with a grave danger of flooding. Both sites are in the Green Gaps as designated by the Ticehurst Neighbour Plan with footpaths adjacent.

It should be down to Rother District Council to actively find suitable sites for the G/T community with the correct access to shops, schools, doctors etc. It shouldn’t be down to individuals to put their sites forward as a last resort to get any kind of planning.

Comment

Representation ID: 28346

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Wallace

Number of people: 2

See attached document objecting to GYP0003 on the following grounds:
- Recent loos of protected trees on the site;
- Potential loss of wildlife;
- Loss of woodland;
- Duty to conserve and enhance the AONB;
- Access and road safety;
- Safety of pedestrians; and
- Not in accordance with Policy HOU11;

Comment

Representation ID: 28379

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

With many homeless people and those wishing not to be tied to a house, the name
Gypsy needs to be changed, What about travelling communities? With facilities for
toilets ,bin collection a garden and community spaces, with a proper plan as they
move around. each development over 20/30 should include a site.