Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26181
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Etchingham Parish Council
In relation to the HELAA, the Parish Council questions the classification of ETC0018 as it believes this site is suitable for a small number of starter homes and note that it is included as such in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Etchingham has limited opportunities to meet its housing needs and would wish to see this site allocated. The Parish Council accepts that the land to the rear of Ladyfield (ETC0018) has a difficult access which may make it difficult to bring forward, but note that in other respects it is suitable for development without being visually intrusive on the wider landscape. It would further observe that the possible site on Church Lane would need to be laid out in a way that lessened its impact on the existing cottages and offered some relief to their parking problems. A possible layout is in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. The site will be contentious.
Please see attached the full response from Etchingham Parish Council regarding the draft Local Plan.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26196
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Hayley Singyard
Object to Robertsbridge HELAA sites:
SAL0004: is farmland, which we are short of.
SAL0022: should be left as fields for farming and for wildlife & nature.
SAL0001: How was this site allocated? There are dormice, nightingale and other rare wildlife.
SAL0029, SAL0028 & SAL0012: The same as SAL0001
SAL0003: The Millsite is fine, but leave the old mill alone and the green belt.
General issues:
- Where will children go to school?
- Doctor surgery
- Sewage
- Water
- Electricity
- Drainage
- Traffic
- Jobs
- Shops
- Activities
- Crime
- Distribution to Robertsbridge people not on
- Cemetery is full
People like e and my son cannot get planning permission because we want to go off grid – not right that big developers should run our village for profit.
Please leave Robertsbridge as a village.
Please see attached representation.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26407
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Francesca Monaghan
Berners Hill Traveller site TIC0039
The local area is one of outstanding natural beauty, alas we were not permitted to include a window at the front of a recent extension to our unlisted property. As such we do not agree with the land earmarked as a potential site for the development of a traveller site or any development for that matter. The proposal contradicts R2 policy in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood Plans to maintain green spaces between settlements and the same site features in the HEELA as a rejected site as it does not meet RDC’s objectives due to historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north. Additionally, the site slopes to west – northwest and would be prominent and encroach on the countryside.
Land at Seacoxers for traveller site TIC0038
Covered by a woodland tree preservation order and abuts ancient woodland to the south. The land owner has made two unsuccessful attempts to gain planning for two properties and four properties which were refused and then dismissed at appeal. In breach of tree preservation order - in breach of dwelling on site without permission - in breach of forming an access on to the highway without permission from ESCC. In the HEELA assessment it is a rejected site as unsuitable for dwellings.
Policy GTC8
I fail to see how these proposals can demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan. Development should be small-scale and in keeping with the settlement pattern, this includes back-fill which has always been resisted, especially with the proximity to Bedgebury.
Dear Sirs,
Despite being degree educated I found your website and the process for commenting on the draft local plan incredibly confusing and difficult to navigate. Therefore, please accept my comments included in this email and as follows:
Berners Hill Traveller site TIC0039
The local area is one of outstanding natural beauty, alas we were not permitted to include a window at the front of a recent extension to our unlisted property. As such we do not agree with the land earmarked as a potential site for the development of a traveller site or any development for that matter. The proposal contradicts R2 policy in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood Plans to maintain green spaces between settlements and the same site features in the HEELA as a rejected site as it does not meet RDC’s objectives due to historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north. Additionally, the site slopes to west – northwest and would be prominent and encroach on the countryside.
Land at Seacoxers for traveller site TIC0038
Covered by a woodland tree preservation order and abuts ancient woodland to the south. The land owner has made two unsuccessful attempts to gain planning for two properties and four properties which were refused and then dismissed at appeal. In breach of tree preservation order - in breach of dwelling on site without permission - in breach of forming an access on to the highway without permission from ESCC. In the HEELA assessment it is a rejected site as unsuitable for dwellings.
‘Live Well Locally’ Policy LWL2 Facilities and Services
The existing infrastructure does not support further development. One main concern is the lack of paving and speed restrictions along the stretch of road through the village. The B2087 and A268 has a history of serious accidents owing to the speed of which vehicles enter the area after exiting the A21 (one of the UK’s most dangerous roads). Development of an area in which residents rely heavily on the use of cars will also increase congestion (there is only one bus an hour until early evening). This goes against the ‘Green to the Core’ policies of the draft local plan.
Policy GTC7 Local Nature Recovery Area
Development should not ‘harm or adversely affect an area or areas identified as being important for biodiversity.
Policy GTC8
I fail to see how these proposals can demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan. Development should be small-scale and in keeping with the settlement pattern, this includes back-fill which has always been resisted, especially with the proximity to Bedgebury.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26427
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Mr David John Harvey
Agent: The Rural Planning Practice
Submisison in support of Land to the North of Cherry Tree Nursery, Flimwell: as part of HELAA broad location TIC0008.
Please see attached representation.
Submisison in support of Land to the North of Cherry Tree Nursery, Flimwell: as part of HELAA broad location TIC0008.
Please see attached representation.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26428
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Swann Fairrie Associates
TIC 0027 - Land North of Fruitfields:
The site is an exposed field within open countryside forming part of (and is wholly within) a Medieval Assart fieldscape. This open green space is an important landscape buffer between the houses along B2087 and an ancient ghyll called Wardsdown Woods, with important flora and fauna as well as the spring that is the source of the River Bewl, an important waterway that forms the boundary between Kent and East Sussex. Building on this open landscape is out of keeping with the wider settlement pattern, impact the wildlife and scar the landscape and character of the National Landscape. It would also:
• Endanger a vital water source for the reservoir and Wardsdown Woods.
• Development here will allow an uncontrolled intrusion thereby causing damage to the ancient woodlands.
• Harm the rural setting.
• The site lacks access.
• See attachment. (attached)
TIC 0027 - Land North of Fruitfields:
The site is an exposed field within open countryside forming part of (and is wholly within) a Medieval Assart fieldscape. This open green space is an important landscape buffer between the houses along B2087 and an ancient ghyll called Wardsdown Woods, with important flora and fauna as well as the spring that is the source of the River Bewl, an important waterway that forms the boundary between Kent and East Sussex. Building on this open landscape is out of keeping with the wider settlement pattern, impact the wildlife and scar the landscape and character of the National Landscape. It would also:
• Endanger a vital water source for the reservoir and Wardsdown Woods.
• Development here will allow an uncontrolled intrusion thereby causing damage to the ancient woodlands.
• Harm the rural setting.
• The site lacks access.
• See attachment. (attached)
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26504
Received: 18/07/2024
Respondent: Mike Noone
Please see representation below.
Points specific to the unsuitability of the field referred to in the Local Plan specified as GYP0002 (on slide 10, “Identifying Sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople”) and TIC0039 (on p66, HELAA-Part 2- CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-Compressed document), respectively.
• The field (TIC0039) has already been deemed as unsuitable for a housing development in the document known as HELAA-PART 2-CHAPTER-5-NORTHERN-COMPRESSED and should not be considered for traveller’s site encampment (GYP0002) for the reasons given in that judgment by RDC, but there are additional ones.
• Firstly, if the County Ecologist for East Sussex was allowed to examine the field, evidence would probably be found that it is a live habitat for natural wildlife and rare plants and deemed it unsuitable for development in the context of environmental and ecological reasons. Anecdotally, I can tell you that in and around the ancient woodland and gardens, which surround the field, there are barn owls, kestrels, woodpeckers, falcons, buzzards and several smaller wild birds, as well as shrews and hedgehogs, resident. The YouGov guidance on “Protected species and development: advice for local planning authorities” is very clear on the need to protect such lands for wildlife.
• The choice of field as a proposed site by RDC also does not take sufficient account of the recommendations laid down in the “Planning Policy for Traveller’s Sites” in my view, which would also probably emerge as a point of concern to the travelling communities being considered for the site themselves. There is a lack of safe road access to the field (GYP0002). The B2087 has no continuous footpath to Ticehurst and in places, is hazardous to pedestrians, mainly because of its bends in both directions, as illustrated by the traffic accidents that have occurred over the past several years. The private road that provides access to Ketley Wood Lodge is too narrow to sustain large traveller vehicles. It is not safe for children to walk to the primary school in Ticehurst, the bus services are only hourly and train access is some miles away in Stonegate and Etchingham.
• Furthermore, there is a lack of basic amenities to support a travelling community in Flimwell. Apart from the smokery, there are no food shops; the nearest grocery outlets are in Ticehurst (about one mile away) and Hawkhurst (four miles distant). Doctor’s surgeries, dentists, chemists, post offices and garages for fuel and repairs simply do not exist in Flimwell.
• Finally, the field is unviable as a site, because it is on an incline and prone to flooding at the bottom. Provision of a basic hard-standing in order to accommodate caravans, cars and HGV’s, as well as gas, electric lighting and water would be expensive. Moreover, if adequate provision is not made for rubbish collection, sewage and noise/light pollution, as well as safeguards against grassland fires, the detrimental effect upon resident wildlife could be catastrophic.
In conclusion, while I empathise with the RDC Planning Department that accommodation must be made for the travelling communities and new housing developments within its district boundaries, an obligation is there to protect obvious green-belt land and to locate such developments where adequate amenities and infrastructure exists.
As its predecessor, the new national Labour Government is still keen to prioritise brown-field sites for new traveller's compounds and housing developments and, even its refined definition of so-called “grey-belt” land at the extreme only focuses on areas previously used mainly for industrial use or redundant car parking in rural areas, which is much lower quality green-belt land.
Much of RDC’s proposed developments in its 2020-2040 Local Plan is on prime green-belt land, which includes ancient woodland and area of natural wildlife and this needs to be reconsidered in its revised plans and consultations.
If adequate land according to new national government guidelines is not available for development, RDC should not consider prime green-belt fields for such purposes.
If accommodation has to be made for new housing and traveller sites in Rother, please focus on the brown field areas first and only the grey ones in case of urgent need.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26543
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association
BUR0020. The Nutrition Centre (Higher Nature), Goodsoal Lane. (Potential site)
2.4 Since this draft of the Local Plan was written, the site has been sold to ENN Recycling Ltd and will continue in commercial use under the new owner. According to the HELAA this is Rother DC’s preferred use for the site. Rother DC will need to establish what plans the new owners have for the development of the site and whether the HELAA assumption of residential development (3 dwellings) remains realistic.
Full submission attached
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26544
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association
BUR0027. Land south of Heathfield Road, Burwash Common. (Potential site)
2.5 We do not support the development of this site for housing.
2.6 This is a greenfield site which is well outside the current Burwash Common development boundary. Development of the site would be an unwelcome incremental step towards ribbon development of the green space between Burwash Common and Broad Oak which Rother DC has previously said that it is anxious to avoid.
2.7 We share the Highway Authority concerns about visibility and footway provision noted in the HELAA.
2.8 This site also has to be considered in the context of one of the rejected sites (BUR0017, Linkway Field, Burwash Common) which has been the subject of multiple recent planning applications, the two most recent being for housing development. The first of these (RR/2023/569/PIP) was rejected by Rother DC and is currently the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. A second proposal for housing development on the site (RR/ 2024/745/PIP) is opposed by Burwash Parish Council but has still to be considered by Rother DC. In our view, if BUR0027 is earmarked for housing, it substantially weakens the case for resisting development on the Linkway Field. Both sites are outside the Burwash Common development boundary, with BUR0027 being significantly further outside than BUR0017. Both sites have similar topography, and both are wholly within the High Weald National Landscape. If Rother DC feels that developing the Linkway Field “would have a harmful impact on the landscape and character of the High Weald National Landscape” then it is very difficult to see how the same argument does not apply equally to BUR0027?
Full submission attached
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26545
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association
BUR0034. Land at Burnt House Farm, Burwash Weald. (Potential site)
2.9 We agree that this site is not suitable for residential development for the reasons set out in the HELAA. We accept that the site may be suitable in principle for small-scale employment use within certain constraints.
2.10 It should be pointed out that there are inaccuracies in the HELAA description. Firstly, there is no dwelling on the site. The current owner tried to get permission for a brick barn with a chimney to be turned into a dwelling, but planning permission was “not processed” (RR/2008/623/P). Secondly, the potential area highlighted on the HELAA map is not accurate because it includes the garage of a neighbouring property and the short drive to it.
2.11 Whether the site can support additional employment and how that is best done requires careful consideration. Burnt House Farm is a conservation area and needs to be protected. The current footprint should not be increased. It is essential that any changes are not visible across the Dudwell valley.
2.12 Access is a problem. The long private access road referred to in the HELAA is private and there is believed to be a covenant on the land which prevents vehicles from the site from using the lane. It may be necessary to establish a new entrance to the site which minimises dangers to vehicles and pedestrians at the point of exit to the A265.
2.13 Some of the properties adjacent to the site have been subject to recent flooding. Neighbours have built storm drains, but any commercial development of the site itself which involves additional areas of tarmac will increase water run-off and worsen the flooding problems.
2.14 Before any development can be contemplated, the site needs to be cleared of all the rubbish that has been dumped and buried by the present owner over several years. Because of the nature of the dumping, the site may also require decontamination. Action on this lies firmly with the Enforcement Officer at Rother DC who, to date, has been unwilling to implement existing Enforcement Notices.
Full submission attached
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26546
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association
‘Rejected’ sites in Burwash Common and Burwash Weald
2.15 The following sites listed in the HELAA (BUR0004, BUR0015, BUR0016, BUR0017, BUR0018, BUR0021, BUR0023, BUR0028 and BUR0033) are considered to be ‘rejected’ sites, in that they are currently regarded as unsuitable, unavailable or unachievable for development. We note this but reserve the right to comment in future should the designation of any of these sites change for any reason.
Full submission attached
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26871
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Christopher Harrison
Number of people: 2
TIC 0027 Land behind Fruitfields, Flimwell
TIC 005 Wardsdown House, Flimwell
This proposed development would be better described as houses to be built immediately adjacent to Wardsdown Ancient Woodlands and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – National Landscape.
BY WAY OF CORRECTION: Your plan for the 9 proposed houses TIC005 coloured purple shows the drive to Wardsdown Woodland as in the ownership of the site north of Copperfield Cottage which is not correct as we own it and therefore it cannot be used in any way as a temporary or permanent access to the site. Also the drive south of Copperfield Cottage, we have absolute rights for all vehicles for all purposes at any time over the full width and this is required access for forestry equipment.
My wife and I are custodians (owners) of the 43 acres that make up Wardsdown Woodlands and since we acquired this beautiful place we have been seeking to enhance and improve the biodiversity with the encouragement and support of the Woodland Trust, including the progressive removal of non-native species of trees and shrubs, achieving a significant level of natural regeneration. Efforts made in this regard have already successfully encouraged a significant improvement in wildlife and more recently confirmation that a number of rare birds including summer visitors, some on the red list, are now nesting in the woods. The very rare Firecrest is a breeding resident.
The area of woodlands immediately adjacent to the proposed boundary for the development site, notwithstanding the wholly inadequate proposed 15 metre buffer zone, has been described by the Woodland Trust for minimum intervention given its importance, and close to this boundary there are oak trees between 400 and 500 years old. From this area it is our understanding following a specialist inspection that rare bats such as the Noctule and the Natterer’s bat are ranging from the woodlands, over the pasture area it is proposed to develop.
The topography of the land, given that the whole field behind Fruitfields (it is my understanding is in the same ownership) it is probable that the catchment pond necessary for surface water disposal would inevitably drain into the ghyll system of the stream that is the source of the River Bewl with probable pollution from the hardstanding run off that would occur. This partially seasonal stream which sometimes dries up along short lengths, is regularly monitored by the Kent Botanical Society as the stream is also the boundary between Sussex and Kent. A more recent report attached identified mosses that are rare and at risk. There are two sphagnum bogs along its course.
This site was put forward in the last Neighbourhood Plan, in my opinion naively as to the best of my recollection nobody, in consideration of the proposals, ever visited Wardsdown Woodlands by appointment to view their importance and the possible damage that would occur from any development in the vicinity.
This development proposal was incorporated in the last Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan as discussed, which is now out of time. If this development is to be once again considered it would need to take account of amendments in the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically section 15 paragraph 180, sub paragraphs a), b) d) and e) and paragraphs 182 and 186, sub paragraphs a) and c) – protection of the national landscape and ancient woodlands. The most recent NPPF guidance note dated 1.05.2024 requires all developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain. In consideration of the foregoing, the opposite would of course be the case and the use of off-site net credits by way of compensation, e.g. purchasing land elsewhere and planting trees, would be wholly inappropriate as this would be no substitution for the damage likely to occur.
Approximately 80% of RDC is in the protected National Landscape and it is therefore necessary to consider whether the allocation of housing need is wholly proportionate with the realistic availability of land whilst of course considering the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework as discussed for the protection of the landscape. Liaison with adjoining authorities that do not have such restrictions should be considered.
We are running out of time to arrest the rapidly declining wildlife in our country and save the countryside. Any reasonable interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework, including the more recent amendments, should exclude this site of any further consideration. However, should it proceed in all or part then there will be little point in me pursuing my project to save and enhance these woodlands as the impact on biodiversity and damage to habitat would in all probability not be recoverable. Is nothing sacrosanct?
Full submission in representation
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26872
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council
Representation on the HELAA, based on sites considered for the Neighbourhood Plan as attached in 2 supporting documents.
Representation on the HELAA, based on sites considered for the Neighbourhood Plan as attached in 2 supporting documents.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 26875
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Peter Lloyd
Comments submitted in relation to:
GYP003 Hawkhurst Road
Flimwell 0.23 The Hollies
TIC0039
Land Broom Hill
Flimwell 2.91
TIC0008/
TIC0027
Tree preservation order protected
Adjoins Wildlife site and ancient woodland
2 previous planning refusals for housing
Enforcement notice pending for caravan removal
Too small for development considered through the HELAA
Adjacent to listed building
Risk of conflict between traveller and opposed settled communities
Adjacent to Ancient woodland
Risks of flooding
Ecologicical impact. Detrimental to presence of extensive wildlife, flora and fauna. Existence of rare protected Bats, Newts, Frogs, Toads, Snakes, Birds along with species of Deer.
Historical boundaries
Extensive views and picturesque setting.Impact on character of the landscape and visual amenity
Inadeqate highways system to cater for large vehicles with notoriously dangerous stretches of road
Ancient Trees
Risk of river pollution
Bog land not suitable for building
Insufficient footpaths or suitablity for wheeling/walking/cycling. No facilities (Doctors/Shops/schools) required by RDC directives
All sites subject to Conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. High Weald National Landscape (AONB) Protected. Nat.planning framework Section 15 Para 180-186 which excludes development except under exceptional circumstances, requiring any developments to achieve a biodiversity net gain. There are no exceptional circustances and therefore any building would contravene Government and Council directives.
Undue pressure on essential services (water/sewage and waste). No local infrastructure (shops/school/Doctors).
We recently moved to Flimwell to retire, seeking the benefits of country living and relaxation. Particularly the local places or interest and activity, such as Bedgbury Pinetum, Bewl Water, extensive woodlands and walks/cycling areas. We cannot see the logic in trying to shoehorn Traveller sites and housing into a quiet settled village that does not have infrastructure to accomodate them rather than prositioning, as other districts have done, sites and housing that provide suitable and adequate facilities near and accessible to larger towns and conurbations - also for the benefit of the travellers and low income families.
Frankly your Green to the Core objective that "emphasises the need to consider the impact of our planning decisions on the climate emergency, biodiversity crisis and the High Weald National Landscape" seems not to be reality.
Full comments received under the representation
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 27025
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Alexander Dorey Flint
Potential Development Locations
BUR0035 - Pippins
The landowner has confirmed the site is not available.
Potential Development Locations
BUR0035 - Pippins
The landowner has confirmed the site is not available.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 27336
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Jan Harrison
TIC008 – Flimwell East Ward Location, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell – Proposed Housing Development
1. The site is within the National Landscape, adjacent to ancient woodlands to the north and all has the highest level of protection.
2. Development of this land will be contrary to NPPF section 15, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, paragraphs 180 – 187 and more 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 the habitat site.
3. As recently as 1st May 2024 an NPPF directive requires all development to achieve a biodiversity net gain; this is of course impossible given the level of destruction of habitat that would be an inevitable result of this proposed development.
4. It is extremely unlikely that Highways would permit crossover and traffic volumes onto the A.268 and its connection with the A21 at the Flimwell crossroads.
5. This proposed unsustainable development would not have the necessary supporting infrastructure facilities.
a) Public transport for occupiers of affordable housing that do not own motor vehicles.
b) Doctors surgeries and NHS dentists.
c) Local shopping and recreational facilities.
d) Primary and senior school places
The proposed development is wholly inconsistent with maintaining the semi-rural nature of Flimwell to the east of the A.21 traffic lights and this is a reason why other applications have been refused.
Comments in opposition of the following sites identified in the Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Assessment
GYP0003 The Hollies, formerly known as Seacox Cockers, The Mount, Flimwell. Proposed 5 traveller pitches.
GYP0002 Land north of Broomhill Flimwell. Proposed Traveller Site 6 pitches
Comments in opposition of the following proposed housing sites:
TIC008 – Flimwell East Ward Location, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell – Proposed Housing Development
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 27490
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Francesca Monaghan
TIC0027 Fruitfields.
The area earmarked for potential development forms part of the Ancient Woodland Inventory 2010. An irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance.
TIC0027 Fruitfields.
The area earmarked for potential development forms part of the Ancient Woodland Inventory 2010. An irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 27517
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council
See attached submission regarding HELAA sites TIC0008, TIC0027, TIC0038/GYP0003, TIC0039/GYP0002, TIC0043 and TIC0044.
See attached submission regarding HELAA sites TIC0008, TIC0027, TIC0038/GYP0003, TIC0039/GYP0002, TIC0043 and TIC0044.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 27724
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr John Monaghan
Policy TIC007 Fruitfields
The area earmarked for potential development forms part of the Ancient Woodland Inventory 2010. An irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance.
Please accept my comments below on the draft local plan, which I am including in this email as I found your website unclear and confusing, despite my postgraduate level of education and vast experience in print media.
Berners Hill Traveller site TIC0039
Our area is one of outstanding natural beauty. However, we were not permitted to include a window at the front of a recent extension to our unlisted property. Thus we disagree with the land earmarked as a potential traveller site, or any development for that matter. The proposal contradicts R2 policy in Ticehurst’s Neighbourhood Plans to maintain green spaces between settlements and the same site features in the HEELA as a rejected site as it does not meet RDC’s objectives due to historical field boundaries and substantial ancient woodland to the north. Furthermore, the site slopes to west – northwest so it would be a conspicuous sight and encroach on the countryside.
Land at Seacoxers for traveller site TIC0038
This is covered by a woodland tree preservation order and abuts ancient woodland to the south. The land owner has made two unsuccessful attempts to gain planning - for two properties and four properties, respectively - both of which were refused and then dismissed at appeal: in breach of tree preservation order; in breach of dwelling on site without permission; in breach of forming an access on to the highway without permission from ESCC. In the HEELA assessment the site is deemed unsuitable for dwellings.
‘Live Well Locally’ Policy LWL2 Facilities and Services
The current infrastructure does not support further development. One main concern is the lack of paving and speed restrictions along the stretch of road through the village. The B2087 and A268 have a history of serious accidents owing to the speed at which vehicles enter the area after leaving the A21 (one of the UK’s most dangerous roads). Development of an area in which residents rely heavily on the use of cars will also increase congestion (there is only one bus an hour until early evening). This goes against the ‘Green to the Core’ policies of the draft local plan.
Policy GTC7 Local Nature Recovery Area
Development should not 'harm or adversely affect an area or areas identified as being important for biodiversity.'
Policy GTC8
These proposals fail to demonstrate a biodiversity gain plan. Development should be small-scale and in keeping with the settlement pattern, this includes back-fill which has always been resisted, especially with the proximity to Bedgebury.
Policy TIC007 Fruitfields
The area earmarked for potential development forms part of the Ancient Woodland Inventory 2010. An irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery as well as carbon sequestration and cultural and landscape importance.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 28077
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Peter & Melanie Collier
Agent: Rubix Estates
Submission in support of the development of:
Land south of Heathfield Road, Burwash Common - BUR0027
Full detail provided in attached representation
Please refer to full submission in attachment
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 28086
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Helen Kirkby
RE: TIC0003/TIC0004/TIC0043/TIC0044 (HOUSING):
Proposed new housing within the parish of Ticehurst would be welcome providing a proportion is dedicated and affordable for the local young and the older population of the village who would otherwise be unable to secure housing and a future for themselves and their families within the Ticehurst vicinity.
However, much thought must be given to the risk of overpopulation in a very small village such as Ticehurst whose present facilities and infrastructure would not currently meet the needs that these proposed sites as a whole would require.
Rother District Council should be able to assure both the Parish Council and the residents of Ticehurst that sustainability to accommodate the extra population, ( including availability of employment), has been thoroughly thought through and sufficiently remedied before any approval and building begins.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 28094
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Hedges
Number of people: 2
Agent: Batcheller Monkhouse
See all the attached documents which promote HELAA sites EWH0009 and EWH0018.
See attached documents which comprise the submission regarding HELAA sites EWH0009: Land east of Hop Gardens, Northiam Road, Staplecross and EWH0018: Land south of Watts Wood, Staplecross.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 28207
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Carole Youdan
In summary, concern and objections to sites TIC0027 and TIC0005. Sites are in direct contravention of:
NPPF section 13, para 143C
NPPF section 15, para 180-188
NPPF guidance May 24
LWL1
LWL2
GTC7
GTC8
GTC9
ENV5
These sites (but specifically TIC0027) are in the High Weald National Landscape and are on land which forms part of and/or abuts Ancient Woodland and to the West, is a right of way used by hundreds of walkers (both local and from farther afield) to access the Ancient Woodland and Bewl Water beyond. To the East of the Development is woodland and other green space.
The area has a significant population of wildlife, birds, rabbits, deer, newts, snakes etc. It is a nesting site for birds and bats. It is a quiet and peace area of natural beauty and should be protected and preserved. Indeed, Rother itself described the Ancient Woodland in the Ancient Woodland Inventory as ‘irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery, carbon sequestration and cultural landscape’
The Development will damage the amenity of this important area and impact on the eco system.
Flimwell itself does not have the infrastructure to support more houses. The bus service is poor and there are no footpaths that fully run towards the nearest villages of Ticehurst and Hawkhurst.
I also have concerns re: additional traffic (since the Corner Farm and Old Wardsdown developments) access to the main road (B2087), and how a vehicle road would safely run alongside the pre existing public right of way to the woods.
It will create a small number of additional houses whilst causing significant, permanent environmental and cultural damage and negative impact for those surrounding the Development and the wider Flimwell population.
I wish to raise my concern and objections to sites TIC0027 and TIC0005 identified in the Rother Draft Plan 2020-2040. These sites are in direct contravention of:
NPPF section 13, para 143C
NPPF section 15, para 180-188
NPPF guidance May 24
LWL1
LWL2
GTC7
GTC8
GTC9
ENV5
These sites (but specifically TIC0027) are in the High Weald Area of National Landscape (formerly known as AONB) and are on land which forms part of and/or abuts Ancient Woodland (which local residents have worked hard to protect) and to the West, is a right of way used by hundreds of walkers (both local and from farther afield) to access the Ancient Woodland and Bewl Water beyond. To the East of the Development is woodland and other green space.
The area has a significant population of wildlife, birds, rabbits, deer, newts, snakes etc. It is a nesting site for birds and bats. It is a quiet and peace area of natural beauty and should be protected and preserved. Indeed, Rother itself described the Ancient Woodland in the Ancient Woodland Inventory as ‘irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery, carbon sequestration and cultural landscape’
The Development will damage the amenity of this important area and impact on the eco system.
Flimwell itself does not have the infrastructure to support more houses - there is no doctors surgery, shop or school. The bus service is poor and there are no footpaths that fully run towards the nearest villages of Ticehurst and Hawkhurst.
I also have concerns re:additional traffic (since the Corner Farm and Old Wardsdown developments there are often huge ques at the traffic lights joining the A21), how this would join the main road (B2087), and how a vehicle road would safely run alongside the pre existing public walk right of way to the woods.
It will create a small number of additional houses whilst causing significant, permanent environmental and cultural damage and negative impact for those surrounding the Development and the wider Flimwell population.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 28218
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Hedges
Agent: Christine Dadswell
Promotion of HELAA site:
- EWH0009 land east of Hop Gardens, Northiam Road
Includes comment on:
- Housing Need
- Proposed Strategy: Overall Spatial Development Strategy
- Vision for Northern Rother
- Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries
- Site Specific Considerations
Please see attached submission documents for full representation including the Techinical Landscape Note
Submission by Christine Dadswell of Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Mr & Mrs Hedges regarding:
Promotion of HELAA sites:
- EWH0009 land east of Hop Gardens, Northiam Road
- EWH0018 Land South of Watts Wood, Staplecross
Housing Need
Proposed Strategy: Overall Spatial Development Strategy
Vision for Northern Rother
Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries
Please see attached documents for full representations.
Comment
Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents
Representation ID: 28219
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Hedges
Agent: Christine Dadswell
Promotion of HELAA site:
- EWH0018 Land South of Watts Wood, Staplecross
Includes comment on:
- Housing Need
- Proposed Strategy: Overall Spatial Development Strategy
- Vision for Northern Rother
- Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries
- Site Specific Considerations
Submission by Christine Dadswell of Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Mr & Mrs Hedges regarding:
Promotion of HELAA sites:
- EWH0009 land east of Hop Gardens, Northiam Road
- EWH0018 Land South of Watts Wood, Staplecross
Housing Need
Proposed Strategy: Overall Spatial Development Strategy
Vision for Northern Rother
Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries
Please see attached documents for full representations.