Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25492
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Rubicon Associates Ltd (RAL)
Agent: Strutt & Parker
Please see attached representations
Please see attached representations
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25496
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Cherry Tree Investments Ltd
Agent: The Rural Planning Practice
Representation concerning TIC0008
- Please see attached comments
Representation in support of TIC0008
- Please see attached comments
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25504
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Kay Wood
Comments on HELAA sites
Please see attached representations:
Comments on HELAA sites:
SAL0001: Land to the south - east of Heathfield Gardens
SAL0028: Land south east of Heathfield Gardens
SAL0002: Vicarage Land, Land south of the western end of Fair Lane
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25505
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Kay Wood
Please see attache representations:
Comments on HELAA sites:
SAL0001: Land to the south - east of Heathfield Gardens
SAL0028: Land south east of Heathfield Gardens
SAL0002: Vicarage Land, Land south of the western end of Fair Lane
Please see attached representations:
Comments on HELAA sites:
SAL0001: Land to the south - east of Heathfield Gardens
SAL0028: Land south east of Heathfield Gardens
SAL0002: Vicarage Land, Land south of the western end of Fair Lane
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25541
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Nigel Breeze
TIC0027 – Flimwell
This land is in the High Weald National Landscape, adjacent to Ancient woodland and a Priority Habitat and therefore should be protected under section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Contrary to LWL2, facilities and services cannot be reached by cycling or walking. Public Transport is inadeqaute (1 per hour). Therefore this site will increase the dependency on cars increasing the volume of traffic, increased emissions and increased danger from vehicles which currently far exceed the speed limit on the B2087 and A268. One death recently within the area.
TIC0027 – Flimwell
This land is in the High Weald National Landscape, adjacent to Ancient woodland and a Priority Habitat and therefore should be protected under section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Contrary to LWL2, facilities and services cannot be reached by cycling or walking. Public Transport is inadeqaute (1 per hour). Therefore this site will increase the dependency on cars increasing the volume of traffic, increased emissions and increased danger from vehicles which currently far exceed the speed limit on the B2087 and A268. One death recently within the area.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25614
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Rosemary Hill
Ref TIC0008 This site is within the National Landscape & immediately adjacent to ancient woodlands with extensive wildlife which should be protected. Any developement would be contrary to NPPF conservice and enhancing the natural enviornment. There are no shops (apart from an expensive deli), amenities such as doctors, schools etc are a long distance away, with no continuous pavement to either Hawkhurst or Ticehurst. Buses are infrequent and largely unreliable. The traffic on this road is unacceptable and will not cope with additional traffic from such a large development.
The traffic from the lights daily extends past our drive. For safety we ideally reverse into our drive. This is impossible when traffic is nose to tail outside. I drive in and then at least 2/3 times daily we take our lives in our hands reversing onto a busy road to get out. There is no alternative to this.
Ref TIC0008 This site is within the National Landscape & immediately adjacent to ancient woodlands with extensive wildlife which should be protected. Any developement would be contrary to NPPF conservice and enhancing the natural enviornment. There are no shops (apart from an expensive deli), amenities such as doctors, schools etc are a long distance away, with no continuous pavement to either Hawkhurst or Ticehurst. Buses are infrequent and largely unreliable. The traffic on this road is unacceptable and will not cope with additional traffic from such a large development.
The traffic from the lights daily extends past our drive. For safety we ideally reverse into our drive. This is impossible when traffic is nose to tail outside. I drive in and then at least 2/3 times daily we take our lives in our hands reversing onto a busy road to get out. There is no alternative to this.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25627
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Wendy Field
TIC0039 – Site ID GYP0002
The introduction of static and touring caravans, domestic paraphernalia, vehicles present, will erode the rural character of the field, harmfully impacting on the medieval protected landscape, with its abundance of wildlife, situated in the High Weald AONB requiring maximum protection.
As per National Planning Policy, Section 15 par 180, to protect & enhance valued landscape. This development will not deliver net gain (GTC8).
Contravenes Policy R2 in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood plan- to maintain gaps.
The land is boggy, with increased vehicle movement, it has no suitable access for vehicles towing caravans, breach of policy LHN6.
Planning policy for traveller sites, Section 1D and 3E, should be no development in a green belt area, except in very special circumstances. There are none.
There are no facilities within 800mtrs walking distance. No public footpath, the narrow B2087 is dangerous, vehicles speed, restricted visibility, consideration of child safety.
TIC0039 – Site ID GYP0002
The introduction of static and touring caravans, domestic paraphernalia, vehicles present, will erode the rural character of the field, harmfully impacting on the medieval protected landscape, with its abundance of wildlife, situated in the High Weald AONB requiring maximum protection.
As per National Planning Policy, Section 15 par 180, to protect & enhance valued landscape. This development will not deliver net gain (GTC8).
Contravenes Policy R2 in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood plan- to maintain gaps.
The land is boggy, with increased vehicle movement, it has no suitable access for vehicles towing caravans, breach of policy LHN6.
Planning policy for traveller sites, Section 1D and 3E, should be no development in a green belt area, except in very special circumstances. There are none.
There are no facilities within 800mtrs walking distance. No public footpath, the narrow B2087 is dangerous, vehicles speed, restricted visibility, consideration of child safety.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25636
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Graham Burchell
SITE ID: GYP0002 / TIC0039. The site is totally unsuitable as a traveller site. It is against Policy R2 regarding maintaining Green gaps between settlements. It does not meet RDC’s own policy regarding historical field boundaries. The plot itself typographically unsuitable, having a significant slope and is wet and boggy most of the year. It is in an Against Core Strategy EN1 as unacceptable landscape impact in AONB location. It would be visible for multiple existing residents as well as from bewl water. It is adjacent to both ancient woodland and wet woodland. The road is too narrow to be able create safe access to the site for vehicle towing trailer and caravans. RDC must agree, as it has already deemed the site unsuitable for any form of development.
SITE ID: GYP0002 / TIC0039. The site is totally unsuitable as a traveller site. It is against Policy R2 regarding maintaining Green gaps between settlements. It does not meet RDC’s own policy regarding historical field boundaries. The plot itself typographically unsuitable, having a significant slope and is wet and boggy most of the year. It is in an Against Core Strategy EN1 as unacceptable landscape impact in AONB location. It would be visible for multiple existing residents as well as from bewl water. It is adjacent to both ancient woodland and wet woodland. The road is too narrow to be able create safe access to the site for vehicle towing trailer and caravans. RDC must agree, as it has already deemed the site unsuitable for any form of development.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25637
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Graham Burchell
REF SITE ID GYP0002/ TIC0039: Should be rejected due to it impact the on environment: Regarding Policy GTC7 – development on this site would represent an unacceptable impact on Bio-diversity. This landscape is the habitat for a number of important species, including Glow Worms, Stoats, Barn Owl, tawny Owls, sparrowhawks and Buzzards as well as an incredible number of invertebrates, bees, newts, lizards, slow worms, grass snakes, toads and field mice. Access to the site would require the removal of established hedgerow. Further more to would contravene Policy GTC8 – it is not possible to develop this as a traveller / gypsy site and demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan.
REF SITE ID GYP0002/ TIC0039: Should be rejected due to it impact the on environment: Regarding Policy GTC7 – development on this site would represent an unacceptable impact on Bio-diversity. This landscape is the habitat for a number of important species, including Glow Worms, Stoats, Barn Owl, tawny Owls, sparrowhawks and Buzzards as well as an incredible number of invertebrates, bees, newts, lizards, slow worms, grass snakes, toads and field mice. Access to the site would require the removal of established hedgerow. Further more to would contravene Policy GTC8 – it is not possible to develop this as a traveller / gypsy site and demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25638
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Graham Burchell
REF SITE ID GYP0002 / TIC0031. Should be rejected as it is not complaint with Policy LWL2. There are insufficient facilities and services to support the site. There is no safe walk way on this section of road. There is only 1 shop (an expensive deli) in Flimwell itself and it is over 3/4 mile walk the opposite way on narrow twisting roads with no pathway or verge towards Ticehurst before reaching a footpath or any street lighting. This is not safe, nor is it compliant with the twenty minute neighbourhood concept. The local GP surgery is already overrun and unable to support the existing community. Public transport is limited to 1 bus an hour and they only run until early evening.
REF SITE ID GYP0002 / TIC0031. Should be rejected as it is not complaint with Policy LWL2. There are insufficient facilities and services to support the site. There is no safe walk way on this section of road. There is only 1 shop (an expensive deli) in Flimwell itself and it is over 3/4 mile walk the opposite way on narrow twisting roads with no pathway or verge towards Ticehurst before reaching a footpath or any street lighting. This is not safe, nor is it compliant with the twenty minute neighbourhood concept. The local GP surgery is already overrun and unable to support the existing community. Public transport is limited to 1 bus an hour and they only run until early evening.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25648
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Ben Linker
GYP0003 / TIC0038 This plot of land is too small for the intended use, is adjacent to ancient woodland which would be badly affected by loss of habitat resulting in a loss of biodiversity. I understand that the current occupier is already in contravention of several bylaws and orders (such as destruction of protected trees) so it is unlikely that any further requirements would be complied with. The NPPF protects the National Landscape from development unless the are exceptional circumstances and none have been identified. There would be undue impact on surrounding listed buildings and on the settled community. NPPF guidance (May 2024) requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, this site would produce a net loss to biodiversity and affect this in neighbouring plots also
GYP0003 / TIC0038 This plot of land is too small for the intended use, is adjacent to ancient woodland which would be badly affected by loss of habitat resulting in a loss of biodiversity. I understand that the current occupier is already in contravention of several bylaws and orders (such as destruction of protected trees) so it is unlikely that any further requirements would be complied with. The NPPF protects the National Landscape from development unless the are exceptional circumstances and none have been identified. There would be undue impact on surrounding listed buildings and on the settled community. NPPF guidance (May 2024) requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain, this site would produce a net loss to biodiversity and affect this in neighbouring plots also
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25649
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Marcia Adele
TIC0027: This development is in direct contradiction to two primary policies for these reasons:
Green to the Core: The scale of development would drastically affect the local wildlife ecology, reduce biodiversity, with loss of habitat that cannot be replaced, and far too close to Ancient Woodland which is actively being managed to promote biodiversity. As there are insufficient local services and inadequate public transport, virtually all amenities have to be accessed by car, and quite often for long distances, creating a big impact on the climate.
Live Well Locally: Contradicts LWL2 and LWL3. Existing residents would be greatly and unfairly affected by the development both in terms of the ruination of the landscape and increased competition for access to doctors, schools, and dentists. Access to anywhere would be via the B2067 which is already overused, too narrow, and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists for much of its length.
TIC0027: This development is in direct contradiction to two primary policies for these reasons:
Green to the Core: The scale of development would drastically affect the local wildlife ecology, reduce biodiversity, with loss of habitat that cannot be replaced, and far too close to Ancient Woodland which is actively being managed to promote biodiversity. As there are insufficient local services and inadequate public transport, virtually all amenities have to be accessed by car, and quite often for long distances, creating a big impact on the climate.
Live Well Locally: Contradicts LWL2 and LWL3. Existing residents would be greatly and unfairly affected by the development both in terms of the ruination of the landscape and increased competition for access to doctors, schools, and dentists. Access to anywhere would be via the B2067 which is already overused, too narrow, and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists for much of its length.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25650
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Marcia Adele
TIC008 : This massive development would place undue strain on all local services (virtually none of which would be accessible safely by foot or by bicycle), the access to roads likely very unsafe, and the already overburdened junction with the A21 would become a major traffic bottleneck, against all aspects of the Live Well Locally policies LWL1 & LWL2. The proposed development is in a vital area of the National Landscape, and the effect of this would pollute and degrade large areas of wildlife-friendly land in a way that would be impossible to recover or mitigate, contrary to Green to the Core policy, and would be totally out of place with the nature of the locality.
TIC008 : This massive development would place undue strain on all local services (virtually none of which would be accessible safely by foot or by bicycle), the access to roads likely very unsafe, and the already overburdened junction with the A21 would become a major traffic bottleneck, against all aspects of the Live Well Locally policies LWL1 & LWL2. The proposed development is in a vital area of the National Landscape, and the effect of this would pollute and degrade large areas of wildlife-friendly land in a way that would be impossible to recover or mitigate, contrary to Green to the Core policy, and would be totally out of place with the nature of the locality.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25652
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Marcia Adele
GYP0003 / TIC0038 - this land had protected trees and is adjacent to ancient woodland, which would be irrevocably damaged by the development in such close proximity. It is totally unsuited to the proposed use, and it is doubtful if the local sewage system could cope with the increased load. There is the probability that refuse and run-off pollution would also contribute to the degradation of this vital piece of our landscape, going against the Green to the Core policy.
GYP0003 / TIC0038 - this land had protected trees and is adjacent to ancient woodland, which would be irrevocably damaged by the development in such close proximity. It is totally unsuited to the proposed use, and it is doubtful if the local sewage system could cope with the increased load. There is the probability that refuse and run-off pollution would also contribute to the degradation of this vital piece of our landscape, going against the Green to the Core policy.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25654
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Marcia Adele
GYP0003 (TIC0039) The intended use for this land would produce an eyesore visible from Bewl Water, our largest local tourist attraction, directly affecting income for some locals/residents. Rare and endangered wildlife that needs this land as part of the local ecosystem would be destroyed, causing an irreversible loss of biodiversity in the area. Because of the narrow access road and dangerous connection to the B2087, which is badly served for public transport (daytime only, once per hour) walking and cycling would be dangerous, resulting in a large increase in motor traffic. The adjoining public footpath would likely become unusable, and undue pressure would be placed on public services such as doctors, dentists, other health services, schools, and welfare provisions, directly affecting existing residents. These are all at odds with LWL2, LWL3, and Green to the Core.
GYP0003 (TIC0039) The intended use for this land would produce an eyesore visible from Bewl Water, our largest local tourist attraction, directly affecting income for some locals/residents. Rare and endangered wildlife that needs this land as part of the local ecosystem would be destroyed, causing an irreversible loss of biodiversity in the area. Because of the narrow access road and dangerous connection to the B2087, which is badly served for public transport (daytime only, once per hour) walking and cycling would be dangerous, resulting in a large increase in motor traffic. The adjoining public footpath would likely become unusable, and undue pressure would be placed on public services such as doctors, dentists, other health services, schools, and welfare provisions, directly affecting existing residents. These are all at odds with LWL2, LWL3, and Green to the Core.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25658
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr christophe chandler
GYP0002 / TIC0039 has already been deemed unsuitable for housing development due to absence of services, pavements and local infrastructure making it unsafe and impractical. These aspects are also applicable in its consideration as a traveller site. The site access poses a danger to local traffic, has inadequate access to public transport and the site itself is prone to flooding with lack of suitable drainage. Such development would harm the landscape character and visual amenity in the AONB conflicting with the National Planning Policy Framework section 15 that emphasises AONB conservation, and is at odds with the “green to the core” principles of the council - this area supports endangered birds, bats, newts and other wildlife that would be irreparably harmed by development. The site contravenes planning policies GTC9, GTC7 and ENV5 in HELAA by degrading critical ecosystems and impacting the AONB landscape adversely.
GYP0002 / TIC0039 has already been deemed unsuitable for housing development due to absence of services, pavements and local infrastructure making it unsafe and impractical. These aspects are also applicable in its consideration as a traveller site. The site access poses a danger to local traffic, has inadequate access to public transport and the site itself is prone to flooding with lack of suitable drainage. Such development would harm the landscape character and visual amenity in the AONB conflicting with the National Planning Policy Framework section 15 that emphasises AONB conservation, and is at odds with the “green to the core” principles of the council - this area supports endangered birds, bats, newts and other wildlife that would be irreparably harmed by development. The site contravenes planning policies GTC9, GTC7 and ENV5 in HELAA by degrading critical ecosystems and impacting the AONB landscape adversely.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25667
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs haylie rudgley
TIC0027 - LAND BEHIND FRUITFIELDS, FLIMWELL This site is directly behind our house which would hugely impact our quality of living and ruin our gorgeous views. It would also affect all our neighbours that have have their views and quality of life ruined. This site lays in an AONB and adjacent to ancient woodlands.
Flimwell has no amenities, including no shop, schools, doctors etc. There is no train station and a limited bus service. There is nowhere to walk to so all residents would need vehicles. Flimwell is a very small village and has also had it's fair share of new houses over the last few years.
The plan also shows our land included in map of the area marked in orange/brown. We haven't asked for this to be included.
We would like to object to this site being included in the Local Plan.
TIC0027 - LAND BEHIND FRUITFIELDS, FLIMWELL This site is directly behind our house which would hugely impact our quality of living and ruin our gorgeous views. It would also affect all our neighbours that have have their views and quality of life ruined. This site lays in an AONB and adjacent to ancient woodlands.
Flimwell has no amenities, including no shop, schools, doctors etc. There is no train station and a limited bus service. There is nowhere to walk to so all residents would need vehicles. Flimwell is a very small village and has also had it's fair share of new houses over the last few years.
The plan also shows our land included in map of the area marked in orange/brown. We haven't asked for this to be included.
We would like to object to this site being included in the Local Plan.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25680
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Kevin Stocker
With reference GYP0002/TIC0039 this proposed site for travellers is completely unmanageable. Road infrastructure and public transport are struggling now and will be unable to cope. The site itself regularly suffers surface water flooding. There is a pathway within the boundaries which is widely used by the local community. Also the site is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are endangered. The proposal is a completely unacceptable.
With reference GYP0002/TIC0039 this proposed site for travellers is completely unmanageable. Road infrastructure and public transport are struggling now and will be unable to cope. The site itself regularly suffers surface water flooding. There is a pathway within the boundaries which is widely used by the local community. Also the site is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are endangered. The proposal is a completely unacceptable.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25686
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs nell chandler
Ref GYP0002. I have found the process of trying to submit any arguments about this extremely difficult and I am in my 40s! So presuming there are many others who have concerns but been unable to go through this process. My main concern is that the travellers way of living is different to that of a village and creating a traveller site within a village will affect the cohesion, feeling of safety and community. It is not appropriate to have a new traveller site put in the middle of a village (Ticehurst and Flimwell merge as villages and are also council boundaries, but the combined village community is still one). There are also many elderly in this vicinity, who may feel intimidated. What measures will be taken to monitor the local changes and protect the existing community?
Ref GYP0002. I have found the process of trying to submit any arguments about this extremely difficult and I am in my 40s! So presuming there are many others who have concerns but been unable to go through this process. My main concern is that the travellers way of living is different to that of a village and creating a traveller site within a village will affect the cohesion, feeling of safety and community. It is not appropriate to have a new traveller site put in the middle of a village (Ticehurst and Flimwell merge as villages and are also council boundaries, but the combined village community is still one). There are also many elderly in this vicinity, who may feel intimidated. What measures will be taken to monitor the local changes and protect the existing community?
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25689
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs nell chandler
Ref GYP0002 -and guidelines of HOU11: The villages of Ticehurst and Flimwell are with the High Weald AONB. The location of this site is between a village road with attractive housing and front gardens where the community take pride in their homes; and a small farm track, Rosemary Lane, from which it is visible. It is within a local and tourist destination where people come with their children, dogs, bikes and horses to enjoy the AONB.. The proposed traveller site would change the character and aesthetics of the village. The site is also not a good area for access, especially with tow-ing caravans as the roads are small and within an existing residential location, where access, traffic and safety on the road is already a problem. In addition, there is very limited public transport, there is no shop within safe walking distance and there are many areas with no pavements.
Ref GYP0002 -and guidelines of HOU11: The villages of Ticehurst and Flimwell are with the High Weald AONB. The location of this site is between a village road with attractive housing and front gardens where the community take pride in their homes; and a small farm track, Rosemary Lane, from which it is visible. It is within a local and tourist destination where people come with their children, dogs, bikes and horses to enjoy the AONB.. The proposed traveller site would change the character and aesthetics of the village. The site is also not a good area for access, especially with tow-ing caravans as the roads are small and within an existing residential location, where access, traffic and safety on the road is already a problem. In addition, there is very limited public transport, there is no shop within safe walking distance and there are many areas with no pavements.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25690
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs nell chandler
Ref GYP0002. I have found the process of trying to submit any arguments about this extremely difficult and I am in my 40s! So presuming there are many others who have concerns but been unable to go through this process. My main concern is that the travellers way of living is different to that of a village and creating a traveller site within a village will affect the cohesion, feeling of safety and community. It is not appropriate to have a new traveller site put in the middle of a village (Ticehurst and Flimwell merge as villages and are also council boundaries, but the combined village community is still one). There are also many elderly in this vicinity, who may feel intimidated. What measures will be taken to monitor the local changes and protect the existing community?
Ref GYP0002. I have found the process of trying to submit any arguments about this extremely difficult and I am in my 40s! So presuming there are many others who have concerns but been unable to go through this process. My main concern is that the travellers way of living is different to that of a village and creating a traveller site within a village will affect the cohesion, feeling of safety and community. It is not appropriate to have a new traveller site put in the middle of a village (Ticehurst and Flimwell merge as villages and are also council boundaries, but the combined village community is still one). There are also many elderly in this vicinity, who may feel intimidated. What measures will be taken to monitor the local changes and protect the existing community?
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25693
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr neale hunt
SITE ID TIC0008 This site is wholly inappropriate due to a number of factors, not least the fact it's in an area of outstanding natural beauty and adjacent to Bedgebury forest and the precious woodland and fauna that is rightly protected there. In addition, there's obviously a total lack of facilities to support even the existing community. Whenever we leave our homes, there's an absolute need to be car bound to collect any provisions, it's not even possible to walk into Ticehurst as the pavements just disappear. At certain times of the day the A268 becomes extremely busy and the A21 is already a very dangerous road, heavily populated with lorries, often driven at excessive speed, which has resulted in a recent fatality at the A21/A268 crossroads.
SITE ID TIC0008 This site is wholly inappropriate due to a number of factors, not least the fact it's in an area of outstanding natural beauty and adjacent to Bedgebury forest and the precious woodland and fauna that is rightly protected there. In addition, there's obviously a total lack of facilities to support even the existing community. Whenever we leave our homes, there's an absolute need to be car bound to collect any provisions, it's not even possible to walk into Ticehurst as the pavements just disappear. At certain times of the day the A268 becomes extremely busy and the A21 is already a very dangerous road, heavily populated with lorries, often driven at excessive speed, which has resulted in a recent fatality at the A21/A268 crossroads.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25694
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr neale hunt
TIC0027
I believe this site should not be developed as a large tranche of wildlife friendly land would be totally compromised, directly impacting the ancient woodlands, currently managed successfully in partnership with the Woodland Trust. In addition, the development would most definitely degrade biodiversity, leading to catastrophic damage to the natural environment which is protected under existing conservation laws.
TIC0027
I believe this site should not be developed as a large tranche of wildlife friendly land would be totally compromised, directly impacting the ancient woodlands, currently managed successfully in partnership with the Woodland Trust. In addition, the development would most definitely degrade biodiversity, leading to catastrophic damage to the natural environment which is protected under existing conservation laws.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25695
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Helen McGilvray
Site ID GYP0002 / TIC0039 (HELAA)
I object to any dwellings on this site (housing or traveller):
Unsafe road to access site. No safe paths at the site entrance for residents to access Flimwell or Ticehurst.
A serious road accident was recorded 23/06/2024 along this stretch of road
(B2087)
It is not safe for adults or children to walk out onto or drive out onto.
Road is often used by Farm vehicles which also pose a risk to anyone walking in the road. Dangerous & unsuitable.
- No amenities in safe walking distance of site. No Doctors, School, Shop, Dentist in reach of the site. Children would have a dangerous 30 minute walk down a 40 MPH road with no path to school. No grass verges suitable for walking. Buses are one per hour. Unreliable service
This precludes Demand Responsive Transport, this is contrary to policies LWL1 and LWL2
Site ID GYP0002 / TIC0039 (HELAA)
I object to any dwellings on this site (housing or traveller):
Unsafe road to access site. No safe paths at the site entrance for residents to access Flimwell or Ticehurst.
A serious road accident was recorded 23/06/2024 along this stretch of road
(B2087)
It is not safe for adults or children to walk out onto or drive out onto.
Road is often used by Farm vehicles which also pose a risk to anyone walking in the road. Dangerous & unsuitable.
- No amenities in safe walking distance of site. No Doctors, School, Shop, Dentist in reach of the site. Children would have a dangerous 30 minute walk down a 40 MPH road with no path to school. No grass verges suitable for walking. Buses are one per hour. Unreliable service
This precludes Demand Responsive Transport, this is contrary to policies LWL1 and LWL2
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25697
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr neale hunt
TIC0039
I am against the usage of this area as a traveller site as appropriate access doesn't really exist and the the site is prone to water-logging. It would also certainly contravene the maintenance of green gaps which will only be allowed where the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area. In addition, there are no local services and a lack of pavements means there's no access by foot.
TIC0039
I am against the usage of this area as a traveller site as appropriate access doesn't really exist and the the site is prone to water-logging. It would also certainly contravene the maintenance of green gaps which will only be allowed where the development is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area. In addition, there are no local services and a lack of pavements means there's no access by foot.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25698
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Helen McGilvray
Site ID GYP0002 / TIC0039 (HELAA)
I object to any dwellings on this site (housing or traveller):
- Lack of available work for anyone living on this site. Very rural area without access to a main town via Train or bus within 30 minutes. It would be unfair to place families at this site without access to work opportunities.
- Any sites approved here would 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."
- The local wildlife will be negatively affected by any dwellings on this site as an area of AONB, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 172, which emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONBs.
Site ID GYP0002 / TIC0039 (HELAA)
I object to any dwellings on this site (housing or traveller):
- Lack of available work for anyone living on this site. Very rural area without access to a main town via Train or bus within 30 minutes. It would be unfair to place families at this site without access to work opportunities.
- Any sites approved here would 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."
- The local wildlife will be negatively affected by any dwellings on this site as an area of AONB, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 172, which emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONBs.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25719
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Cenydd Milne
TIC0027 on the land behind Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell. My concerns are as follows:
1. Lack of Essential Amenities:
The is outside the "Live Well Locally" LWL2 in local planning framework with an absence of essential amenities within a walkable distance of 800 meters. There are no food shops, doctor’s surgeries, or primary schools safely walkable. The nearest amenities are located in Ticehurst, the road there is lacking a footpath, street lighting, and features 40-50 MPH speed limit. This makes it unsafe for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable groups.
2. Traffic and Road Safety Concerns:
Additionally, this development, combined with TIC0005, will increase car journeys on the already dangerous B2087. Without traffic calming measures at Union Street, the addition of 16-20 cars accessing the small lane will heighten the risk. Cars frequently exceed the 30 MPH speed limit, often traveling at over 50 MPH.
TIC0027 on the land behind Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell. My concerns are as follows:
1. Lack of Essential Amenities:
The is outside the "Live Well Locally" LWL2 in local planning framework with an absence of essential amenities within a walkable distance of 800 meters. There are no food shops, doctor’s surgeries, or primary schools safely walkable. The nearest amenities are located in Ticehurst, the road there is lacking a footpath, street lighting, and features 40-50 MPH speed limit. This makes it unsafe for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable groups.
2. Traffic and Road Safety Concerns:
Additionally, this development, combined with TIC0005, will increase car journeys on the already dangerous B2087. Without traffic calming measures at Union Street, the addition of 16-20 cars accessing the small lane will heighten the risk. Cars frequently exceed the 30 MPH speed limit, often traveling at over 50 MPH.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25721
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Cenydd Milne
In reference to TIC0008 I believe this is a poor location for this sizable proposed development because:
Severe Congestion: Access via A21 or A268 will exacerbate congestion at Flimwell crossroads.
Lack of Local Amenities: The development contravenes LWL2 policy, which requires shops, schools, and doctors within 800m. The nearest amenities are accessible only by car.
Commuter Development: The local community cannot support the number of new jobs, making this a commuter development. Residents will drive to work, increasing car journeys.
Traffic and Safety Concerns: Additional car journeys to Hawkhurst or Ticehurst will add to congestion on the already dangerous A268 and B2087 as well as the A21
In reference to TIC0008 I believe this is a poor location for this sizable proposed development because:
Severe Congestion: Access via A21 or A268 will exacerbate congestion at Flimwell crossroads.
Lack of Local Amenities: The development contravenes LWL2 policy, which requires shops, schools, and doctors within 800m. The nearest amenities are accessible only by car.
Commuter Development: The local community cannot support the number of new jobs, making this a commuter development. Residents will drive to work, increasing car journeys.
Traffic and Safety Concerns: Additional car journeys to Hawkhurst or Ticehurst will add to congestion on the already dangerous A268 and B2087 as well as the A21
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25730
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Lisa Lishman
We are in strong opposition to the request for potential development of site TIC0027. Further consideration of this land for 8 dwellings would contradict both of Rother District Council's policies to be Green to the Core and Live Well Locally causing irreversible damage to the biodiversity of a significantly important area. Ancient woodland, protected wildlife species (tawny owls, newts, bats and deer) and richness of nature would be severely impacted. The area is also an important tributary to Bewl Water, with further residential premises causing water pollution, landscape degradation to the natural landscape and affecting the migration routes of birds. There is no infrastructure (draining, water), or natural access to the site, that, in an area already suffering with traffic and congestion, would severely add to the problem for existing local residents
We are in strong opposition to the request for potential development of site TIC0027. Further consideration of this land for 8 dwellings would contradict both of Rother District Council's policies to be Green to the Core and Live Well Locally causing irreversible damage to the biodiversity of a significantly important area. Ancient woodland, protected wildlife species (tawny owls, newts, bats and deer) and richness of nature would be severely impacted. The area is also an important tributary to Bewl Water, with further residential premises causing water pollution, landscape degradation to the natural landscape and affecting the migration routes of birds. There is no infrastructure (draining, water), or natural access to the site, that, in an area already suffering with traffic and congestion, would severely add to the problem for existing local residents
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 25733
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Shaun Williams
We oppose the development of site TIC0008 on the grounds that
1. This land is within the High Weald national Landscape (an AONB) and borders ancient woodland. It is therefore protected under NPPF Section 15 and should not be developed unless there are exceptional circumstances of which I see none.
2. The proposed development of 100 houses is wholly inconsistent with maintaining the semi-rural nature of Flimwell east of the A21
3. Flimwell has virtually no existing infrastructure (no doctor’s surgery, shop or school) and extremely narrow paths next to very fast roads. Walking and cycling in that area is not a pleasant experience as it is. The addition of 100 houses would increase traffic significantly. Hawkhurst Road (A268) and the A21 is already a bottleneck with significant queuing traffic on all four directions of the Flimwell lights.
We oppose the development of site TIC0008 on the grounds that
1. This land is within the High Weald national Landscape (an AONB) and borders ancient woodland. It is therefore protected under NPPF Section 15 and should not be developed unless there are exceptional circumstances of which I see none.
2. The proposed development of 100 houses is wholly inconsistent with maintaining the semi-rural nature of Flimwell east of the A21
3. Flimwell has virtually no existing infrastructure (no doctor’s surgery, shop or school) and extremely narrow paths next to very fast roads. Walking and cycling in that area is not a pleasant experience as it is. The addition of 100 houses would increase traffic significantly. Hawkhurst Road (A268) and the A21 is already a bottleneck with significant queuing traffic on all four directions of the Flimwell lights.