Re: TIC0008. The A268 cannot take any more traffic. There is usually a queue back past The Smokery in non off peak times, sometimes back as far as Flimwell Park and even St.Augustine's Church. Thee would seem no way to access straight on to the A21 even if desirable. Plans to change the A21/A268 crossroads were shelved some years back after great expense. There are no shops in Flimwell unless you count The Smokery which really is a coffee shop / come luxury foods provider where nobody would consider doing regular shopping. The pub and fish and chip shop have gone. You cannot walk to Ticehurst (two miles anyway) as footpaths are non existent part way and cycling is not safe as road speeds are high. Apart from that the site is next to Bedgebury Forest which is of paramount importance in our AONB / National Landscape.

The TIC0027 proposal, land adjacent to the already identified and allocated site TIC0005, is precisely what many of us local residents feared when TIC0005 was approved for inclusion in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan against our vociferous objections. We were forced to be content with every assurance from both TPC and RDC that the land East of TIC0027 would never be allocated for housing but instead, according to our Plan, would be "an opportunity for developing a managed area of woodland and ponds (linked to a SuDS) to provide improved habitat areas for wildlife and native plant species." In any case, the Southern strip of that land is not in the developer's (the Peer Group) gift to develop since they do not own it! Imposing a further 8 houses there on our community would open up the possibility of resurrecting the rejected site TIC0032 to more development which would be disastrous.

While you may have rejected Flimwell Site TIC0039 for housing the fishing expedition to utilise that land, instead, as a traveller site has to be rejected out of hand. The topography of the land, alone would present insurmountable obstacles to the creation of viable traveller pitches there. Means of access are virtually non-existent and the lower parts of the site are extremely boggy in autumn and winter. Even a cursory visit by your planning officers to this site would lead them, I am sure to summarily dismiss the idea that a traveller site could ever be successfully maintained there. By the time we get to Regulation 19 consultation this proposal must certainly have disappeared without a trace.
It would further violate

With further reference to TIC 0032 in Flimwell, the HELAA states that "the landowner" (in actual fact there are TWO landowners there) seeks to extend the allocated site into this land to provide for a viable development." This suggests that the developer knew perfectly well that the proposed TIC0005 development, in and of itself, was not viable in the first place, as did RDC planning department. So why on earth was TIC0005 approved then?! To fulfill a quota - on paper at least? How anyone could believe that the Peer Group is resolved to " protect and enhance the wooded area" adjacent to the site is beyond belief. How could they or their architects and builders 'enhance' the most significant tract of ancient woodland in our Parish, namely Wardsdown Woods, by building 9 houses virtually abutting its Southern boundary? This is clearly both platitudinous and vapid nonsense.

TIC0039 in the HELAA document is described as "land to the North of Broomhill." This should read "land South-West of Broomhill."

With further reference to TIC0027 in the HELAA document, any more housing development there would further impinge on the Southern boundary of Wardsdown Woods, arguably our community's most valuable resource, and would obliterate the visual amenity of all of the houses comprising Fruitfields as well as the ancient Aggregate Assart
field system, identified and documented by Claire Tester of the National Landscapes Association back in 2016 whose report was included in the evidence base for the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan. How anyone could square this with the Local Plan's biodiversity gain aspirations is beyond me and hopefully the authors of the local plan too!

Proposed site TIC0008

I am writing to oppose the development of this site. It is very similar to two sites that have already been rejected, and it should be rejected for similar reasons.

The first similar site is Site 02 – Flimwell West of A21 in https://ticehurstnp.org/index_htm_files/Site%20assessment%20document%20final%20version%2015%20July%202018.pdf . Site 02 is on the other side of the A21 to TIC0008 but is of a similar size (100 houses). This site appears to have been renamed TIC0032 in the new document, and it was rejected in July 2018 on these grounds:

• The size of the site is a concern, as it would be a major development in a
village which, at present, has no shop or school.
• It would have a considerable impact on the AONB.
• There are no key facilities (school, shop, doctor) in Flimwell to support
such a large development.

Nothing has changed since July 2018 and all of these grounds would also apply to the proposed site TIC0008. In fact, the lack of schooling provision is now worse, because in the time since July 2018 Angley School in Cranbrook has closed, further reducing the number of state secondary schools in the area. Flimwell has no educational or medical facilities.

The second similar site is Site 04 in the same document. Site 04 is actually inside TIC0008 and was rejected in July 2018 on these grounds:

• There are two major problems with the site: it is a considerable distance
from the Flimwell development boundary; and it would have a major
impact on the AONB.
• An outline planning application for this site with fewer houses was
refused in 2013, primarily for the above reasons.

Again, nothing has changed since July 2018. Site 04 proposed 12-13 dwellings, so 100 would certainly have a much bigger impact on the AONB (High Weald National Landscape). As far as I can see from the plan, access to the A268 would be through the old Site 04. The exit from the site would be close to the brow of a hill on the A268 so sightlines would be poor. It would also be close to the A21 traffic lights, queues from which often reach much further back eastwards along the A268. At busy times these queues mean it would be difficult for vehicles to turn right onto the A268 from the site.

I will add that there are no local facilities close to site TIC0008, and certainly none within walking distance. It would not be possible to live there without owning a car, which would greatly increase congestion in the area. As well as the lack of key facilities (school, shop, doctor) already noted, there is also a lack of employment opportunities in the area. Apart from working at home, I can't see the employment need to have so many houses there. Access to the closest stations would require car ownership.

There is a footpath through the proposed site (towards the eastern end, near TIC0056) that runs from the A268 into Bedgebury Forest. This is used daily by walkers, cyclists and dog-walkers. There would be considerable disruption to this footpath while the site is being developed, and the rural quality of the footpath would be lost permanently - an area of woodland would be destroyed. This footpath is one of the main reasons I bought my house in Sunnybank.

As far as I am aware, the waste water drainage system for the Sunnybank cottages has been working at capacity for the time that I have been living here, and the pumping station (Southern Water site reference 101896) needs frequent maintenance. The recent Flimwell Park development can only have added to the volume of waste water that the system must process, I don't believe the system would be able to handle the waste water of 100 more homes without a substantial upgrade. As far as I can tell, the Rother Local Plan 2020 - 2040 does not consider the waste water requirements of site TIC0008. It includes sections for Coastal, Water and Flood Risk Management and for Sustainable Surface Water Drainage but not specifically for waste water disposal. Supporting documents such as https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/w5zpvhq0/l3_tice.pdf (from https://www.southernwater.co.uk/about-us/our-plans/drainage-and-wastewater-management-plans/rother-catchment/# ) are out-of-date as they do not take into account the impact of the Flimwell Park development. Even so, it can be seen from that document that the main issues are blockages and problems with the pumping station/treatment works.

While you may have rejected Flimwell Site TIC0039 for housing the fishing expedition to utilise that land, instead, as a traveller site must be rejected out of hand. The topography alone would present insurmountable obstacles to the creation of viable traveller pitches. Means of access are virtually non-existent and the lower parts of the site are extremely boggy in autumn and winter. Even a cursory visit by your planning officers to this site would lead them, I am sure, to summarily dismiss the idea that a traveller site could ever be successfully maintained there. By the time we get to Regulation 19 consultation this proposal must certainly have disappeared without a trace. It would further violate the TNP's Policy R2 - maintaining green gaps between settlements which "will be carefully controlled and only be allowed where the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area."

TIC008 site is in contradiction to NPPF section 13, paragraph 143 C) and Section 15, paragraphs 180-188. Additional issues stem from a lack of infrastructure in transport links, access to shops within walking distance of 800 metres and lack of capacity and access to essential services such as GP, dentist, hospitals and schools. Both A 268 and B2087 are congested during peak hours, the addition of 100 houses and corresponding traffic will overload and already overloaded set of roads.

TIC0027 is in complete contradiction to NPPF section 13, paragraph 143 C) and Section 15, paragraphs 180-188. Adverse impact on wildlife, ancient woodland, biodiversity. National Landscape/ ANOB should be preserved not destroyed. Noise and air pollution while development takes place are additional concerns and will adversely affect wildlife and a fragile ecosystem constantly under threat.

TIC0038 covered by woodland tree preservation order. Contradicts NPPF section 13, paragraph 143 C), Section 15, paragraphs 180-188. Against Green to the Core Policies 7 and 8. Against Live Well Locally policies 1 and 2.

TIC0027 This site would destroy large areas of wildlife-friendly land where every day deer, foxes, rabbits and birds of prey can be observed by all the nearby residents and would significantly degrade biodiversity (against NPPF guidance May 24), is far too close to protected ancient woodland which is actively managed in conjunction with the Woodland Trust to successfully increase bio-diversity - and decades of this work could be lost at a stroke as the necessary wildlife corridors would be destroyed. Also there is no safe and practical access to the local highways and no safe walking routes to local services

Site ID GYP0002/TIC0039 Policy HOU11 is unsuitable for the following reasons; It is in the Ticehurst/Flimwell Green Gap and High Weald National Landscape. The site is very visible to the surrounding dwellings, as well as being visible from Bewl. My understanding is that development within the Gap will ‘only be allowed where the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area’ (policy R2). Clearly, this is not the case with this site. There is no suitable, safe access. The field is on a significant slope and is very boggy, particularly at the bottom. It seems to me that development of the site would only worsen the drainage issues elsewhere. A footpath runs adjacent to the site. The Green Gap and surrounding areas are rich in biodiversity and support many more important species than those mentioned in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan (details available).

GYP0002 There is no safe access to this site, the B2087 is already unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, and due to restricted visibility any traffic emerging from a side road would have great difficulty in existing safely. Due to the fact there are no local services within 800m (except one pub) and it is unsafe to walk or cycle, plus the hourly day-time-only bus service is not adequate and precludes Demand Responsive Transport, this is contrary to policies LWL1 and LWL2.

TIC0008 – East Broad Location, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
The site is in the National Landscape which has the highest level of protection under the NPPF which also requires all development to provide a biodiversity net gain (GTC8) which this development is unlikely to deliver.
100 houses plus commercial and community use will increase congestion on the A21 and safe vehicle access to & from the site could be problematic on already dangerous roads A21 & A268.
Pavements are woefully inadequate – too narrow to safely walk on.
Facilities locally are non-existent – no doctors, no shop. Public transport is limited (LWL2).

TIC0027 – Land behind Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
This land is in the National Landscape and borders ancient woodland and afforded the highest level of protection under NPPF Section 15 and therefore should not be developed unless there are exceptional circumstances which there do not appear to be.
The woods in question have been proactively managed leading to endangered birds returning and providing habitat to rare bats and other wildlife. Bats, rabbits, deer, birds of prey are regularly seen in and over the land in question.
GTC8 – there will be no biodiversity net gain and it’s likely that development will damage the habitat causing a loss in biodiversity.
LWL2 – there are no facilities within walking distance. Public transport is limited.
The B2087 is a rat run with speeding traffic day and night and is increasingly dangerous to pedestrians and drivers.

TIC 0008 – Housing, Flimwell East Broad Location

This site is within the National Landscape and adjacent to ancient woodlands which both have the highest level of protection. Development would be contrary to NPPF section 15, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, paragraphs 180-187, specifically paragraph 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 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain.

Highways would not permit resultant traffic volumes onto the A.21 at Flimwell crossroads.

There are hopelessly inadequate infrastructure facilities as required by RDC policies including water supply and sewage disposal.

The proposed development is wholly inconsistent with maintaining the semi-rural nature of Flimwell east of the A.21 which is one of the reasons other planning applications have been refused.

TIC0027 – Housing, Land rear of Fruitfields, Flimwell

The site is in the National Landscape, on the northern boundary interfaces with the extremely important Wardsdown Ancient Woodlands where there are 500 year old ancient trees. Together with other rare birds, it is one of the few places that the rare Firecrest is permanently resident. Noctule and Natterer’s bats roost in the woodlands and range over the pasture it is proposed to develop.

Pollution from construction of any houses (TNP proposed) is extremely likely to cause irretrievable damage to this important habitat. NPPF section 15 paragraphs 180-186; conservation enhancement of the natural environment apply and more specifically paragraph 188. Presumption in favour of sustainable development doesn't apply with a plan or project that is likely to have significant effect on a habitat site. If this scheme is approved, nothing is sacrosanct!!! WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO SAVE OUR WILDLIFE.

TIC0027
This area of land is in the National Landscape & adjacent to & includes an area of Ancient Woodland which is home to numerous rare and protected species. The development of the site to the west (TIC0005) will cause devastation to this precious place as it is. Further development would be catastrophic. The land gets extremely waterlogged and water run off from any hard standing would exasperate this problem as well as likely posing a pollution threat to the River Bewl.
The most recent NPFF guidance note dated 1/5/24 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, I cannot believe that offsetting the damage caused by developing this land will ever be possible. In previous local plans this site was dismissed and considering the recent work carried out by the owner and the Woodland Trust its environmental importance should be even more prized.

TIC0027
Access to this site would join the A2087 at Union Street. This section of road is treacherous at the best of times with the speed limit of 30mph frequently exceeded and accidents sadly all too regular. The brow of the hill to the west gives little chance to spot oncoming vehicles and I believe that adding more traffic onto such a stretch of road would be dangerous.

TIC0027
Flimwell does not have the infrastructure for an additional number of houses. We have no doctors surgery, shop or school within walking distance. Long sections of road with no pavement and virtually no street lighting. Travel links amount to 1 bus route from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings.
The village is in an AONB (now National Landscape) surrounded by Ancient Woodland with all of the environmental benefits that this gives, your Green to the Core policy should obviously be aimed at preserving such elements for future generations.

Ref Site TIC0027 – Flimwell
I believe this site should be discounted from development on the following grounds. Building on the fields will massively alter the hydrology of the land directly impact the ancient woodlands to the north of the development. Furthermore the development will cause harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the AONB, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 172, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of AONBs.
The proposal could lead to irreversible damage to the natural environment, flora, and fauna, which are protected under various local and national conservation laws.

Ref Site TIC0027 – Flimwell
The proposed site access track does not have an acceptable visibility splay providing for safe access on to the B2087. The access road would need to be at least as wide as the access road into Old Wardsdown – to achieve this the rental property owned by the landowners would likely need to be demolished – thereby depriving Flimwell of a vital ‘rental’ property. The site is not actually viable for development for this and other reasons.

Ref Site TIC0027 – Flimwell
The proposed site access is likely to pose a serious danger to traffic on the B2087. The site lines on the road can legitimately be blocked by parked vehicles on the B2087 and the access road is in a dip meaning cars approaching from Ticehurst, often at speeds well over the 30 MPH limit, will not be visible, nor will they see cars pulling out from the proposed development. Building on this site is likely cause significant danger to local traffic and thus should not be considered further.

Ref Site TIC0027 – Flimwell
Site TIC 005 – This site may well be in the Neighbourhood plan but it has yet to be granted planning permission and all of the factors I have raised re site TIC0027 will be brought to bear on Site TIC 005 when the landowner finally applies for planning – which it has judiciously chosen not to do, in spite of the Flimwell Neighbourhood Plan being approved several years ago.

Ref Site TIC008 – Flimwell
The A21 is one of the busiest and most dangerous roads in East Sussex. The notion that a housing development at TIC008 feeding in a significant volume to traffic is even being considered is ridiculous. The traffic lights at Flimwell are a huge pinch point in A21 traffic flow on an average day, so adding further significant traffic flow from a housing development will only make the A21 traffic flow considerable worse and the road even more dangerous than it currently is. The Highways Agency should be consulted immediately before this plan goes any further.

Ref Site ID GYP0002/TIC0039
The site is unfortunately unsuitable as a Gypsy / Traveller site. There are no local services within 800m. It is unsafe to walk or cycle as there are no pavements or street lighting. There is no safe access to this site and the site access is likely to cause danger to local traffic. The site itself is boggy and liable to flooding. The development may cause harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the AONB, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 172, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of AONBs. The proposal could lead to irreversible damage to the natural environment, flora, and fauna, which are protected under various local and national conservation laws.

I question whether TIC0039 contravenes with planning policies GTC9, GTC7, and ENV5 as stated in HELAA. GTC9, which mandates the conservation and enhancement of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). GTC7 is aimed at local nature recovery, and ENV5, which protects habitats and species. The site TIC0039 is known for deer and fawn feeding and nesting, as well as sightings of protected Great Crested Newts. Developing this area would degrade critical ecosystems, which goes against the council's commitment to sustainable planning and conservation and one of their main principles “green to the core”.

I question if planning application GYP0003 (TIC0038) meets national and local planning policies, and the latest National Highway policy which says that no new development should take place near a slip road to a major road. The A21 is a very busy and fast road. A fatal accident on the junction earlier this year highlights the unsafe infrastructure for walkers. The only local shop within walking distance is an expensive luxury deli rather than a convenience store and the flexibus does not go to important facilities and services such as Pembury hospital and therefore not meeting two of the policies LWL1 & LWL2 under the council main priority to live well locally.

I question whether GYP0002 (TIC0039) contravenes with planning policies GTC9, GTC7, and ENV5 as stated in HELAA. GTC9 mandates the conservation and enhancement of National Landscape. The site is within the High Weald National Landscape with an adjoining public footpath and extensive views to bewl water. GTC7 is aimed at local nature recovery, and ENV5, which protects habitats and species. The site is known for deer and fawn feeding and nesting, as well as sightings of protected Great Crested Newts. Developing this area would degrade critical ecosystems, which goes against the council's commitment to sustainable planning and conservation and one of their main principles “green to the core”.