Hastings fringes should be under the Westfield Parish umbrella for development.

Surely the National Planning Policy Framework is actually the starting point, not the local plan? The NPPF proposes the various ways forward and the local plans dispose according to the received NPPF guidance.

I object to this plan to protect ancient land, its trees and hedgerows, protect vulnerable wildlife and endangered flora and fauna. Also, the damaging impact and affect it with have on this ancient town of Battle and surrounding area.

The Plan only refers to new development it does not contain any detail about regeneration of existing out of date building stock. Battle does not require further building of new houses on green land and farm land it needs old building stock ie the police station and numerous unlet buildings in and around the highstreet to be redeveloped into affordable homes. Some office space and shops have been empty for years

I am against the building on greenfield in Battle. The Rother proposal does not consider using brownfield or the adaptation of older larger houses. In addition the proposal is mainly geared towards building yet more luxury houses. By Rother's own research the main need for housing is the young and over 64 all of which need well built apartments close to shops, restaurants and transport. The plan is in complete contradiction with Rothers Councils environment strategy. In addition the focus on greenfield will increase risk from flooding, loss of wildlife and the inability to provide much needed local food security.

My Comments and any thereafter in the following items will be with regards to the proposed possible site : Wild Meadows Chapel Lane Guestling TN35. This site has been turned down in 2023 by Rother Planning and by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal both fully documented. We would ask the question as to why this site is now suitable for 14 Houses.

the plan has fitted "existing/in the pipe line/creeping developments" into the strategic objectives, rather than looking at how things are, and how things could be improved by taking a wholistic view of redesigning a whole area, see coldharbour estate, brightling

Please see attached comments.

The potential housing development site PLA0008 is completely inappropriate for development for all the reasons that were clearly stated in the Planning Inspectorate’s appeal ruling for the Shellfield site which is located directly across New England Lane from PLA0008. His reasons included; the site defined part of the green separation (strategic green gaps) between Rye and Playden; the significant distance of the site from central Rye and that there being insufficient buses to define it as a regular service. Rye Hill was also viewed as too steep for most people to walk.
New England Lane is an ancient sunken road bordered with many old trees, presumably many of which would need removal to allow access to the proposed development sites.
Neither PLA0008 or the Shellfield site are appropriate for inclusion in the Rother Local Plan
I am writing on behalf of both myself and my wife Claire Susan Myatt who also lives at Saltcote Cottage

I object to this plan to protect ancient land, its trees and hedgerows, protect vulnerable wildlife and endangered flora and fauna. Also, the damaging impact and affect it with have on this ancient town of Battle and surrounding area.

Shocked

With global warming and the increase in population building more houses and additional need for power ,water,sewage, gas,is totaly unacceptable.On a local level access to a doctor is virtually impossible at the present time.
This is an area ANOB which this plan will be destroying wild life ,deer, badgers ,foxes, birds. I do not want to see a country covered in concrete that my grandchildren will inherent and blaming our generation for not stopping this urbanisation of the countryside.I see this going on in all the villages in Kent and Sussex and if I have to result to physical actions I am prepared to do that.In the words of a famous song SEE PARADISE PUT UP A PARKING LOT

Full submission attached

I will start off by commenting that it is a very detailed ambitious plan covering many aspects of life in Rother. I am not sure whether many parts of it will come to fruition due to the cost and I understand that Rother is putting aside a huge sum of money to repair our dreadful roads. The roads suffer from the amount of lorries and industrial vehicles which thunder through our towns and villages.

Due to the incompetence of the Council the Plan which should have been out on 2024 is now due in 2026.

Our local plan which was worked on for 3 years and is very detailed was supposed to take us to 2039. That has now been changed without consultation to 2028. Why?

My comments of course mainly relate to Peasmarsh where I live but I have made comments on other parts of the Plan

In section 1.9 Peasmarsh has been missed out as one of the Villages which have a Local Adopted Plan so it should state 8 Villages – not 7.

In Fig. 35 on Page 173 it does state that Peasmarsh has a Local Adopted Plan.

Our Village, Peasmarsh suffers from flooding, sewerage problems and electricity failures.

The warden assisted development in the Maltings was closed – people were relocated away and a large new development built on the site ( the only 3 storey development in Peasmarsh). The grassed area was built on and now properties in Farm Gardens below this development have flooding problems as no measure was put in place to cope with the problems caused by concreting this entire area. Also the roads were left in a poor state from all the heavy equipment and vehicles used to erect this development.

I agree with high standards for building (though no mention was made of fire safety).

The very old listed Church, at the highest point of the Village, suffered from flooding last year and this year so half of the Graves and the path were under water. Not much hope for the Village which is lower down!

No mention is made of the specific needs of children and the facilities required to enable them to do well in this area.

Farmland should be protected which will help food security and fits well with your Green to the Core and Live Well Locally emphasis in the Plan

Our farmers need all the help they can get and their produce and livestock means we can buy locally (less food and transport miles)

8.94 I agree that it is not appropriate to make provision for higher levels of care beds.

Mention was made in the Plan of Roads and Streets but none about Lanes – which you find in most Villages.

Public Rights of Way should be upheld though a proviso should be added regarding dogs being kept on leads on fields containing livestock. Again a sheep owned by our local farmer was savaged by a dog allowed to run loose.

I agree that Ancient Woodlands, SSSI’s should be protected and Dungeness which is a unique site in itself.

I agree that Habitats and Dark Skies should be protected. I hope we never have street lighting in Peasmarsh.

Brownfield sites and disused buildings should be identified and used for any new development NOT Greenfield sites

In principle I agree with ENVI – Coastal Water and Flood Risk Management and EC07.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

Support for representations made by Ticehurst Parish Council.

Individual comments made on specific policies as logged.

Please also see attached a draft policy for Bewl Water drawn up by the Northern Parishes Group.

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

It is important that any development that takes place is sustainable, supported by suitable infrastructure and protects and wherever possible enhances the local environment. Working with parish councils to ensure planning priorities are supported by local communities is key, and Neighbourhood Plans are central to this.
Whilst it is important that we provide new homes that local people can afford to buy locally, affordability and supply concerns should not override everything else. Similarly, eco-friendly design should not be the sole consideration- beauty and a design code in keeping with existing design elements are also important.

I note that ‘delivering district-wide and neighbourhood infrastructure to support growth, and strengthening the sustainability of settlements and communities’ are identified as key planning issues. It is essential that the local transport infrastructure and services fully support these ambitions, if they are to be achieved.

I support the Council’s vision that future development should support biodiversity wherever possible.

To alleviate flooding risk and support bio-diversity net gain, application assessment, monitoring and planning enforcement are as, if not more, important and require greater resources going forward.

Please find below some specific concerns and issues I want to raise regarding housing, the environment and sustainability, infrastructure and services, stakeholder and community engagement, as well as some final economic considerations.

1. Distribution of Housing:

There appears to be a heavy concentration of new housing developments in certain areas, such as Bexhill North, while the Urban environment appears to have a lower housing growth potential. This may lead to overburdened infrastructure and services in certain areas, while others remain underdeveloped.

2. Affordable Housing Provision:

The plan sets a target of a percentage affordable housing. I welcome the Plan’s commitment to ensure “that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations”. However, consider:

Affordable Housing targets: The plan mentions the provision of affordable housing, but specific numbers and how they align with actual need (e.g. population growth) need to be clearer.

Viability and Delivery: The plan allows for financial contributions in lieu of on-site affordable housing under certain circumstances. This could lead to fewer affordable homes being built in practice, as developers might prefer to pay contributions rather than integrate affordable units into their projects.

3. Environmental and Sustainability Concerns:

Several allocated sites involve greenfield land, raising concerns about environmental impact and sustainability. As the proposal notes, it may be necessary to develop on some greenfield land to meet targets, however redevelopment of existing brownfield sites should be prioritised.

The importance of local beauty: As stated above, while eco-friendly design is undoubtedly crucial, it should not be the only consideration in our planning process. It is equally important to ensure that new developments adhere to a design code that emphasizes local beauty, aesthetic appeal and harmony with existing architectural elements. This will preserve and enhance the unique character and beauty of our communities.

Impact on Green Spaces and Agricultural Land: Some site allocations may involve the development of greenfield sites. This might conflict with some sustainability goals and local opposition from communities valuing these green spaces. Likewise, it is necessary to make sure that adequate infrastructure, connectivity and services exist for further development in these areas.

4. Infrastructure and Services

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies the need for significant investment in transport, education, health, and utilities to support the new housing developments.

There may be insufficient planning for the necessary infrastructure (e.g., roads, public transport, schools, healthcare) to support the new housing developments, particularly in areas seeing significant growth. The Plan acknowledges the needs of older people and individuals with disabilities, so the link between housing and infrastructure provision in local development need close attention.

5. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

The document acknowledges the need for ongoing consultation with local communities and stakeholders to refine site allocations and development plans. However:

Expanding community Involvement: The process of site allocation may not always have met community expectations of involving local communities and stakeholders, leading to decisions that do not fully reflect local needs and priorities. It would be ideal for the proposal to outline the specifics of how consultations regarding new housing will be carried out to maximise the input of local communities.

Transparency and Justification of Choices: The criteria and rationale for selecting specific sites over others may not be clear to local communities, leading to potential criticisms of bias or insufficient justification. This may cause undue concern in local areas, where residents may feel they are excluded from decision making but have the most impact.

6. Economic Considerations:

Economic Viability and Job Creation: While the plan includes employment floorspace, it is crucial to ensure that these developments will genuinely lead to job creation and economic benefits for the local population. There should be a clear link between housing growth and employment opportunities. The housing strategy could detail the steps taken to improve employment opportunities in local areas; which would mean residents have shorter commutes and thus less strain on the transport network.

I also welcome the Plan’s support for diversification of traditional rural businesses as basis for development in our countryside and planning aims.

Finally, consideration should be given to further ensuring a diversity of employment types are supported e.g., higher skilled/technical opportunities as part of this.


These points highlight potential areas for further scrutiny and discussion to ensure the local plan is comprehensive, balanced, and meets the needs of all community members effectively.

Please see attached document for comments on the following issues:

1. General environment:
- Better maintenance of verges and flower beds in Bexhill, including along the sea front.
- Council should get involved in the sewage discharge issue.
- Extend promenade along to Cooden and Pevensey.
- More public toilets required.

2. Housing / NHS
- Development should use brownfield sites over greenfield sites.
- Development should not be built on flood areas.
- No residential development without doctors, dentists and schools.
- Work with NHS in promoting walk in facilities ot take pressure of A&E.

3. Parking
- More free spaces for those that want to pop in to Bexhill for a short time. Also larger spaces e.g. 4 hours there are not enough. Why charge on the seafront - this does not encourage visitors and does not help local businesses.

4. Town businesses
- There are too many empty shops. Is this because the rent is too high? DO something to encourage young business starters, get the shops full so Bexhill is an interesting and different shopping centre to come to.

5. Fitness facilities
- Ravenside swimming pool needs a refurbishment. It is used so much to help local people's fitness. For weeks the showers were not working but we still had to pay to swim full price. An outside lido would be such a great addition to the town and would draw people here. Is there funding out there for this?

6. There are many positives that must be mentioned:
- Lots of historical things manly run by Bexhill Museum and Bexhill heritage. Keep and develop these groups.
- Lots of fitness activities for older people. This is great and needs extending.
- De La Warr provides a fantastic point for visitors and provides art and music for local s and visitors from afar.
- Good transport. Trains, local buses and free town bus.
- The beach is looked after well, bins emptied regularly, etc. This is great for residents and visitors.

Generally this is a great place to live but there are things to do. The most important thing is to develop the economy, encourage more visitors to come here to spend money.

Please see attached submission document for full representation.

Please see attached submission document for full representation.