The proposed traveller site in Flimwell (GYP0002) is not suitably placed. The proposed site lies very close to our business which is situated in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The site is visible to surrounding dwellings, as well as being visible from Bewl Water. The field is on a significant slope and is particularly boggy in places and development of the site would only worsen the drainage issues elsewhere in the local community. The proposal could also lead to damage to flora, and fauna, which are protected under various local & national conservation laws.
Being the largest employer of staff in the local area as well as an integral provider of accommodation for a number of other wedding venues nearby, our business is vital to the local economy.
The site (GYP0002) has no suitable, safe access is located on a busy road. The road has already had some accidents including one severe road accident to an ex staff member of Dale Hill that required an air ambulance service. More traffic on the road will only exacerbate these issues.

Site ID TIC0008 / TIC0032 (HELAA)

I object to any dwellings (housing or traveller sites)
This is a dangerous & fast road (A21) and the pedestrian crossing is not safe for high-volume usage. There was a fatality along this stretch of road late 2023.
My Mother was also hit by a car at the A21 pedestrian crossing on 13/10/2023 & sustained serious injuries. This is not a safe crossing & to place so many houses right by it would be a risk to life.
The village is a long distance from a hospital. Ambulance services are so stretched I could not get an Ambulance for my Mother when she was hit by the car.
There are also no amenities, doctors, shops, dentist, schools to support dwellings on these sites. This is a small village and such a development would be better placed closer to educational & care facilities.

GYP0003 (TIC0038)
According to the latest National Highway policy, the policy states that no new development should take place near a slip road to a major road which is exactly where this site lies, with the A21 only a few yards away. Bus services are not up to standard for anyone living here and facilities nearby don’t reach the standards set in your own policies (LWL1 & LWL2).

TIC0027

I have read through some of the text on your policies, this stands out to me as being the very reason that the site behind Fruitfields should be dismissed as even a possible site for development.
“Ancient Woodland covers 16% of the district. This is an irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance.”
These are your own words and are the very reason that the land should be left alone and treasured.

TIC0039/GYP0002
This 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 emphasises the conservation and enhancement of AONBs.
Contravenes Policy R2 in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood plan- to maintain gaps.
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 itself regularly suffers from surface water flooding.
The site contravenes planning policies GTC9, GTC7 and ENV5 in HELAA by degrading critical ecosystems and impacting the AONB landscape adversely.

TIC0039/GYP0002
I object to the following plans for following points.
As per National Planning Policy, Section 15 para 180, to protect & enhance valued landscape, this development will not deliver net gain (GTC8).

There are no facilities within 800mtrs walking distance. No public footpath, the narrow B2087 is dangerous, vehicles speed, restricted visibility, no consideration of child safety.
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. 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”

TIC0039/GYP0002
I object to the plans for this site for the following points;
It does not meet RDC’s own policy regarding historical field boundaries.
It is Against Core Strategy EN1 as unacceptable landscape impact in AONB location.
No amenities in safe walking distance of proposed 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.
It 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." 

There is no demand responsive transport as per LWL1 & LWL2.
There is a public footpath running along the boundary.

TIC0039/GYP0002
Objections to the plans as below:
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.
Would be prominent in long views. appearing as an encroachment into the countryside, impacting on the landscape and character of the National Landscape.
The site encompasses historical field boundaries.
Adjacent to ancient woodland.
Would contravene Policy GTC8 – as it would not be possible to develop this as a traveller site and demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan.

TIC0008 this plot adjoins ancient woodland which would be damaged by a large residential settlement. There is already an inadequate sewage problem in the immediate area and no safe access to roads. There are no safe footpath or cycling routes to local facilities, and it looks as if the only (and very expensive) local shop (The Weald Smokery) might have to be demolished as part of the plans, removing a local facility from residents. There are currently extreme demands on local doctors and the health infrastructure certainly can't support a development of this size

TIC0039 Broom Hill Flimwell 9GYP0002)
This parcel parcel of land is unstable for this kind of development its on a step slope behind and residential area and can be seen in an area of outstanding natural beauty. This kind of development would put a severe blot on the m
Landscape. There are more low level sites with natural boundaries that would be more suited.

TIC0005,TIC0027
Both these sites should be rejected regardless of any current status. They are not suitable for building as highly likely to be contaminated land owing to their previous use. TIC0027 is very susceptible to flooding as it is the primary drainage location for surface water from B2087 at the FruitFields Drain point. It would also result in 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)

TIC0027 – Land behind Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
As a biologist, I am concerned about the impact this proposal would have on biodiversity (GTC8). This area, adjacent to ancient woodland, protected under NPPF Section 15 and is also part of the National Landscape. This dominant species in this site is Juncus effusus which offers a rich habitat for many species of insects, mammals and birds. Butterflies and bees are currently in abundance and I have observed several birds of prey, including kestrels and sparrowhawks. It should also be noted that Juncus effusus thrives in wetland, acidic soil which offers poor drainage, making it difficult to build on.
In addition, LWL2, has no reasonably priced shops within walking distance and public transport is limited. The road passing this site, B2087, is a busy, increasingly fast road and not suitable for pedestrians or for walking access to Ticehurst School and Surgery

The proposed area of land is adjacent to significant Ancient Woodland significant in Southeast and within the National Landscape (AONB).
These woods are home to many rare spices some of which have return and are in the early stages of reestablishment.
A development to the west (TIC0005) is already devastating to this precious area.
TIC0027 becomes waterlogged, but the runoff provide water to the delicate eco system of the Ancient Woods & River Bewl. Developing the land adding hard standing, would upset the already delicate eco system of this area.
A recent NPFF guidance note dated 1/5/24, requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain. The damage to this area through development could never be properly offsetting.
Local plans have previously been dismissed for this site, inspiring the Woodland Trust to develop the environmental of these import Ancient Woods.
The area is prized by locals and RDC’s web site.

TIC0005 & TIC0027
Sites be accessed on the crest of the hill of B2087 making dangerous access and egress. The pavements don't support safe walking / cycling and roads are subject to very high speeds. In the last 12months within 800 yards of B2087 & A268 of the Flimwell crossroads there has been one fatality and two serious car accidents where cars were right offs. Overall the current demand on the roads is being unsustainable and there is a distinct lack of reliable public transport along with the required services such as Fresh Water, Drainage and that the local networks can support. Specifically the TIC0027 serves as a Key Run off for surface water from B2087. There are also no basic facilities to absorb extra dwellings in terms of Doctors, Local Amenities, Dentists as all already overstretched.

TIC0005 & TIC0027: These developments appear in direct contradiction to two primary policies, 
Green to the Core: The scale of development would drastically affect the local wildlife ecology, reduce biodiversity, with loss of irreplaceable habitat, specifically 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 loss of amenity landscape and increased competition for access to doctors, schools, dentists & any local shops. Access to anywhere would be via the B2067 which is already overused, too narrow, and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.

I strongly object to the Gypsy site application GYP0002 due to inadequate and unsafe access, and lack of essential services. The B2087 is already hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists, with heavy traffic often tailing back into Ticehurst and no pavements. Restricted visibility from side roads poses a significant risk for vehicles turning out safely. The limited bus service cannot accommodate additional demand and does not connect to the local hospital and furthermore there are no local shops within walking distance of the site. This proposal contradicts HN01 policy, which prohibits development in areas lacking local services particularly when walking or cycling is unsafe. The hourly, daytime-only bus service already currently fails to meet the needs of residents, and excludes Demand Responsive Transport, violating policies LWL1 and LWL2 undermining the council's priority to live well locally..

TIC0008
There is a permanent problem with the drainage system which requires pumping out during periods of heavy rain. House at 1/2 The Mount and further down at Seacox are listed properties. The open spaces between devlopments in the village are important and should remain. Cherry Tree Nursery has been the subject of endless planning permisions, enforcement notices etc. All the reasons for the refussal of planning permission should be extended to this large plot of land.

I am perturbed to see the representation posted by Strutt and Parker, on behalf of the shell company Rubicon Associates Ltd., concerning TIC 0039, marked in grey on the HELAA map for Flimwell and earmarked as "potentially available". This is a nakedly shameless 'pitch' for housing on land purchased speculatively some time ago now by would-be Tunbridge Wells developers - scrap metal dealers A&A Metals. Development at this site would ride roughshod over both the local community and the architects of our draft local plan for pure financial gain, no matter what the cost to the quality of life of current residents, the already tenuous biodiversity of the area, the National Landscape designation, the potential obliteration of the remnants of our medieval assart system and the threat that another large scale development along the B2087 would pose to local road safety. This is reckless, irresponsible opportunism that should be summarily dismissed.

As a resident near the TIC0008 considered sites, I strongly object to their development.

Access onto the road is already very difficult, with the road being very busy and fast. Furthermore, access to the A21 via the lights at Flimwell is very congested, queued right up the road towards Flimwell Park, taking more than 10 minutes to get onto the A21 on many occasions.

There are no services in Flimwell, and few buses, so everyone will need to have at least one car per household.

Any increase in traffic will cause huge difficulties at Flimwell and also Hawkhurst lights, where there are already further developments taking place.

All in all, this is an awful place to introduce further housing, with no services, causing additional stress on the surrounding villages, and will be ruining the countryside and woodland to achieve this.

TIC0005
This site borders ancient woodland with many species of birds previously on the red list making a return. Bats have been seen in this area too.
Any construction in this area would be at odds to the directive 01/05/24 that requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain.
The site borders ancient woodland with some trees over 500 years old.
Any run off of surface water would likely pollute the river bewl which runs through the woodland.
No infrastructure in Flimwell, no shops, minimal bus service, doctor appointment problems.

TIC0005 Flimwell.
Proposed site will border ancient woodland.
According to Rother local plan 1.35 " The extent of the ancient woodland is also significant covering 16% of the district- the greatest of any district in the South East (see Ancient Woodland Inventory 2010) This is an irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance."

I would like to comment on the current 2020-2040 plans for Flimwell Village.

With regards to the housing site TIC0008, this site I feel is unsuitable for housing, mainly because of the lack of facilities in Flimwell (an ice cream shop, and a smokery) There is a highly dangerous road immediately bordering it (where there has recently been a death of a pedestrian) Also the fact that it is bordering onto Bedgebury Forest and includes Back-fill.

With regards to site TIC0027, consisting of (at present) 9 houses, this is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to Wardsdown Ancient Woodlands, with Oak trees of between 400 and 500 years old. At the bottom Northeast of the site is a ghyll system which runs into the stream that is the source of the River Bewl which will inevitably be polluted by surface water runoff from the hard standing of any dwellings built. There are two Sphagnum Bogs along the course of that stream which are occupied by newts that are protected under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017. Of course, there is also the concern that there is Japanese Knotweed actively growing on the premises.

I would like to comment on the current 2020-2040 plans for Flimwell Village.

With regards to the housing site TIC0008, this site I feel is unsuitable for housing, mainly because of the lack of facilities in Flimwell (an ice cream shop, and a smokery) There is a highly dangerous road immediately bordering it (where there has recently been a death of a pedestrian) Also the fact that it is bordering onto Bedgebury Forest and includes Back-fill.

With regards to site TIC0027, consisting of (at present) 9 houses, this is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to Wardsdown Ancient Woodlands, with Oak trees of between 400 and 500 years old. At the bottom Northeast of the site is a ghyll system which runs into the stream that is the source of the River Bewl which will inevitably be polluted by surface water runoff from the hard standing of any dwellings built. There are two Sphagnum Bogs along the course of that stream which are occupied by newts that are protected under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017. Of course, there is also the concern that there is Japanese Knotweed actively growing on the premises.

TIC0008 The proposal to build 100 houses at sunnybank, Flimwell, the village has insufficient infrastructure to support more houses, the road at sunnbank the A268 is already a fast and dangerous road, applications for new accesses onto the road have refused permission several times, there are no shops - schools - doctors, - dentist etc in the village and the existing drainage system doesn't cope with demand now

TIC0038 Gypsy and traveller site , all of the above applies also it is an area of High Weal Natural Landscape , there are no local services accessible by foot or cycle. The access is not sufficient for towed caravans & large vehicles it would harm the amenities of adjacent properties

TIC0008 The proposal to build 100 houses at sunnybank, Flimwell, the village has insufficient infrastructure to support more houses, the road at sunnbank the A268 is already a fast and dangerous road, applications for new accesses onto the road have refused permission several times, there are no shops - schools - doctors, - dentist etc in the village and the existing drainage system doesn't cope with demand now

TIC0038 Gypsy and traveller site , all of the above applies also it is an area of High Weal Natural Landscape , there are no local services accessible by foot or cycle. The access is not sufficient for towed caravans & large vehicles it would harm the amenities of adjacent properties

In relation to the site TIC0039 Broom Hill Flimwell (GYP0002), I believe this parcel of land to be too close to the surface water flooding nearby to be suitable. I feel the ancient woodland nearby will be adversely affected. This is also located within the Ticehurst-Flimwell Green Gap on a dangerous bend in the road which will cause more hazards for local people and road users.

TIC0008 The proposal to build 100 houses at Sunnybank Flimwell, the village has insufficient infrastructure to support more houses, the road at sunnybank the A268 is already a fast & dangerous road, applications for new accesses into the road have refused permission several times , there are no shops schools doctors dentist etc in the village & the existing drainage system struggles to cope with demand now.

TIC0038 Gypsy & traveller site , all of the above applies to this proposal also it is in the area of High Weald Natural Landscape, there are no local services accessible by foot or cycle, the access is not suitable for towed vehicles caravans etc & it would harm the amenities of adjacent properties.

TIC0008 The proposal to build 100 houses at Sunnybank Flimwell, the village has insufficient infrastructure to support more houses, the road at sunnybank the A268 is already a fast & dangerous road, applications for new accesses into the road have refused permission several times , there are no shops schools doctors dentist etc in the village & the existing drainage system struggles to cope with demand now.

TIC0038 Gypsy & traveller site , all of the above applies to this proposal also it is in the area of High Weald Natural Landscape, there are no local services accessible by foot or cycle, the access is not suitable for towed vehicles caravans etc & it would harm the amenities of adjacent properties.

Objections to TIC008:
Local infrastructure cannot support an extra 100 houses
Policy LWL2 - no safe useable walking route to school, doctor's, local shop - man killed on path close to proposed site recently
Proximity to Bedgebury National Pinetum
100 houses equates to possibly 400 cars - local B road cannot support this, especially being so close to the traffic lights on the A21
Increasing carbon emissions substantially
against 'Green to the Core'

Objections to GYP0002:
In HEELA as a rejected site already
No footpath to school, doctors, shop therefore increase use of cars against 'Green To The Core' policy and Policy LWL2
Substantial ancient woodland to the north - important for biodiversity -site against Policy GTC7
Land is boggy, floods - unsuitable.

TIC0008
This large site is a contiguous series of fields that forms a section of open countryside to the north of the A268, east of Flimwell and the A21, bound by ancient woodland to the north. Development here would represent a significant extension to ribbon development alongside the A268, impacting the rural character and setting of the settlement and encroaching into the countryside of the National Landscape. Furthermore, the site is some distance from services in Flimwell, with no connecting footway.