As well as keeping the IDP up-to-date, every planning application, individually, needs to consider whether the capacity and availability of all types of infrastructure in and around the proposed site is or will be made adequate for the proposed housing.

It would be great if everything you suggest in the above was carried out , BUT in Peasmarsh Village our infrastructure is poor, A bus service that is not fit for purpose and the council cutting services, we have virtually no pavements at the West end of the village, everywhere you go the roads have pot holes if people were to cycle they would end up with major injuries or possibly killed , as regarding utilities , we have constant power cuts, we have sewage problems , peoples gardens underwater , we have flooding from all the fields , where the drains cannot cope ,we do not have a doctors or a dentist , and all the fields where people exercise , the council want to build on , so until all our services are fit for purpose and working , there should be no development.

The Plan does not adequately address the serious infrastructure constraints already affecting Battle. Existing services are already under significant pressure, and further large-scale housing development would exacerbate these problems.
Flooding is a persistent issue in parts of the town, with existing drainage systems struggling to cope during periods of heavy rainfall. Increasing the number of hard surfaces through additional development would inevitably worsen surface water runoff and flood risk.
Also Battle’s historic road network was not designed to accommodate significant increases in vehicles. Additional housing would place further strain on already congested routes.
In addition, there are ongoing concerns regarding the capacity and reliability of the local water infrastructure. Residents already experience problems related to water supply and sewerage capacity, raising doubts about whether the system can support a substantial increase in housing.
Until these infrastructure challenges are demonstrably resolved, further development in Battle should not be supported.

Council needs to come to Beckley and cycle/walk the A268 to Rye not just look at a map. If you live in Beckley you need a car, the local bus service has been reduced, the road is dangerous to walk/cycle, its a fast A road, no verges, no pavements, roads in bad state of repair. We employ locally and staff have no alternative but to drive. As a local business we know the electricity and internet supply is patchy at best, we suffer power cuts, high voltage issues. The local sewage system needs investment but Investment goes to the towns, villages have to make do.

Transport. Main Road already stretched. Exit Tanyard Field, poor line of sight even for 15 homes on sloping clay soil, springs.
RDC buses "adequate". LOOK at current timetable. Inadequate for medical centres railway, schools, general travel
Community/ Cultural. Business Centre by playing fields. Parking already inadequate. Bus. centre will need parking for deliveries.
Flats planned by business Rural business can be noisy all day.
Education. No planning for any influx.
Health/Social. If bus service were good, local surgeries may manage -not with influx 20%+ over time
Flood Defence. No mention that Peasmarsh has always suffered from run-off from largely clay soils and springs. SEE Govt OS sites . RDC's claim Peasmarsh scores both neutral and minor positives disingenuous,
Sewerage. Originally for nearly 300 houses. Now about 400 and great deterioration. Cannot cope . All drainage and sewerage infrastructure must be in place before ideas of building on sloped clay lands.

Planning consultation: Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations and Interim Sustainability Appraisal and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Thank you for your consultations on the above dated 26th January and 11th February 2026, which were received by Natural England on the same days.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

We note that we previously provided comments on your Draft Rother Local consultation (our reference 359662) where we focused on the use of Natural England's 'Green Infrastructure Framework - Principles and Standards for England' (GIF) and briefly touched on other matters previously discussed with your authority. These comments remain valid (I have attached a copy for convenience) and the comments below, in relation to your latest consultations, will have a similar focus. The absence of comments on other matters within the Plan should not be taken as Natural England having no comments to make but that we have prioritised our advice. In particular, we have not commented on SA or HRA concerns (other than in relation to the Dungeness Complex, below), or any protected landscape concerns nor reviewed the allocations.

Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Key sustainability issues

Plan- Making for Biodiversity in the Climate Emergency

Given the severity of the decline in biodiversity and the climate change emergency, local plans have a key role to play in planning for resilience, forecasting, and making space for nature to adapt to a changing climate. Plans should seize the opportunity to help to reverse this decline through ambitious and integrated plan-making which demonstrably avoids and minimises impacts and seeks all opportunities to help reverse the biodiversity decline.

Green Infrastructure

Plans must adopt a strategic approach through multifunctional green infrastructure provision and nature recovery networks. To this end, we welcome the incorporation of green and blue infrastructure provision within several of your site policies. In particular, we welcome the embedding of Natural England's GIF within Policy BX1 – Bexhill Urban Area. However, we recommend the strengthening of the wording, by clarifying the meaning of ‘Where appropriate…’ in the context of this policy and by requiring the use of the Urban Greening Factor (and incorporation of ‘…measures to support…and biodiversity enhancements’). To this end, we suggest the use of ‘must’ rather than ‘should’, in paragraph four of the policy text. We recognise the existing urban nature of this policy’s geographical area but this increases the likely need to provide green infrastructure within new developments (NPPF 20 d), 96 c) and 125 a).).

We also welcome the requirement within Site Policy BX8, that development ‘on this site must:…iv. Provide a Green Infrastructure framework that retains and enhances habitats, alongside sustainable drainage (SuDS) measures;…’

Additional Comments:
Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS)

Spatial Strategic Objective (Figure 1) – We welcome the inclusion of an objective to ‘2. Maximise opportunities for nature conservation, recovery…’ However, although some of your previously proposed policies include the requirement to meet the objectives of the LNRS (non-strategic policy ENV5: Habitats and Species and strategic policies GTC7: Local Nature Recovery Areas, GTC8: Biodiversity Net Gain), there is currently no reference to the emerging LNRS. This section of the Spatial Strategic Objective would be a suitable place to support those policies and the NPPF (192 a)) by the addition a similar requirement, in relation to complying with the LNRS.

Designated Sites

Figure 11: Rother Development Strategy – Key Diagram – a pictorial representation of the development strategy

For completeness, this figure should include the Beachy Head East (Royal Sovereign Shoals) Marine Conservation Zone. Although the intended environmental interest coverage is not specified, it should be noted that Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserves are also missing, so if these have been deliberately omitted, perhaps the addition of some text explaining the choice of environmental sites should be included by way of clarification.

Habitats Regulations Assessment Background Paper – Draft (Regulation 18) Version – January 2026

Further to our previous advice in relation to addressing recreational pressure on the Dungeness Complex, we would take this opportunity to repeat advice given on 19th January 2026, regarding the need to update the visitor surveys and to devise an appropriate mitigation strategy:
Natural England are concerned about delays in the production of a suitable mitigation plan; especially in view of the age of the original visitor surveys. The detailed mitigation within the SARMS would need an updated evidence base. However, if such surveys indicate that recreational use is predominantly from visitors from outside of the local authority area, it may be that mitigation would more appropriately be addressed through a ‘Coastal Code of Conduct’ type approach, rather than via developer contributions. The details of such an approach would need to be discussed with our protected sites colleagues.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan
We welcome the recognition of green infrastructure as a type of infrastructure (2.23) and for your authority’s commitment to “Integrate community centres into wider green infrastructure…” (4.22 c.). We also welcome your authority’s aim, as set out in the Council’s strategic objectives and in the Rother Climate Strategy 2030, to place strong emphasis on enhancing the quality, accessibility, and multifunctionality of the green infrastructure network. (7.12).


Please see attached PDF version of these comments as well as Natural England’s comments in response to the previous 2024 Regulation 18 consultation on the draft Local Plan.

While it is understandable that the majority of funds need to go to the larger centres, rural villages are being told to increase housing numbers but seem to be notably absent in new infrastructure planning. Extra vehicles from new housing in areas with poor public transport provision will make the current poor state of rural roads even worse.
Dentistry should be included in health and social care.
More work need on access to hospitals. The queues by The Conquest can be dreadful. Improving public transport may not be enough as when you are ill, you do not necessarily want, can or should travel by public transport.
Water infrastructure is also very important. Even with current housing there was a lengthy hosepipe ban in the District last year. More housing will add extra strain but it can take years to build new reservoirs etc.

Transport - a bus service every two hours and, due to lack of funding, certain Sunday services withdrawn in Peasmarsh is unacceptable. Buses are regularly cancelled, the train service from Ashford to Eastbourne via Rye, one an hour, is disrupted on a regular basis. No direct service to London! Rye is a tourist town and good transport links is essential to the growth of the economy in the area.
Secondary school is limited in Peasmarsh, six form facilities are non-existent children need to travel to Bexhill and Hastings to continue their mandatory education. Early morning bus and train journeys, with the issues already raised, cannot be good for the well being of the students.

As previously requested above, we urge the Council to read the information contained within Appendix 1 below which explains why the inclusion of equestrians is beneficial to everyone.

As always we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council and, indeed, future developers to ensure the inclusion of equestrians in their plans.


Please see attached representations from the British Horse Society

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Question 1. Point 11 states “ Deliver sustainable development……Having regard to local context and character” This is NOT shown by how Peasmarsh is presented in many instances. The objectives do not include any mention of The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now renamed the High Weald National Landscape!
I think this is a cynical move so that destroying the National Landscape sound less offensive than destroying Natural Beauty. If it is destroyed once it is lost for ever. Changing the name does not make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation.

Qu.5 - Regarding Infrastructure Needs which are essential for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan ( PNDP) accepted by Rother District Council in April 2024 after an Inspection and Local Referendum highlighted in great detail the inadequacy of the Utility and Energy supplies in Peasmarsh.
In 2025 there were 32 water leaks in Peasmarsh ( approximately 3 a month) in Mackerel Hill, Tanhouse Lane, Main Street, School Lane and Church Lane. And some of these have still not been fixed. That is not acceptable and further development will add to these.
The sewer system is completely deficient – the drain arrangements combining storm water with sewage added to the wet conditions ensure not only flooding but the eruption of raw sewage into the road.
Southern Water has admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its capacity so further development of any consequence will exacerbate the unpleasant and insanitary conditions. This problem is confirmed by may photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
And despite the flooding problems in Peasmarsh ( The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh) part of the Village have experienced no water and as a result had to collect bottled water or had it delivered.
Even the Domeday Peasmarsh Church at the highest point in the Village has had a large part of the Churchyard under water! So what hope is there for people living lower down in the Village?
Power cuts are also prevalent and last December and February of this year we experienced a major outage caused by flooding. Apparently this cannot be helped or remedied ! More development will add to the Utility and Energy problems.
Peamarsh was classified as being in a Flood Plain so I do not understand the phrase in the Planning Documents – “clearly not a local issue”.
If developments do go ahead and the flooding, sewage and energy problems follow then as I understand it Rother Distric Council can be sued as they cannot deny not being made aware of these consequences.
Builders in the past have not been held to account. For instance following the closure of a warden assisted complex in Peasmarsh where local people were moved from their homes – the only 3 storey building in Peasmarsh was erected( social housing).
All the grass area was concreted over for parking and as a result houses lower down in Farm Gardens experience flooded gardens. Water has to go somewhere and yet again nothing was put on place to stop this! This is not acceptable and the damage to roads during construction was not repaired.
Incidentally very few former residents were allowed back and the new residents take very little part in Village life.
Many came from towns and find living in a Village difficult?

Qu.6 - The Development Option SD13-A21 seems reasonable.
SD014- filling strategic gaps is sensible and adopted in the PNDP. BUT forcing unreasonable development targets into areas which are totally unsuitable are not

Question 13 - The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster is completely wrong.
It ignores the actual situation in Peasmarsh
Firstly the number of houses allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that of any other Village- despite the geographical, power and water limitations that exist. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes is wrong.
Secondly the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the Village and its capacity to absorb such development. The proposals would increase the size of the Village population by 15-20% completely changing its character.
The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040.
Why should Peasmarsh in the ANOB/HWNL suffer an increase twice that of the County as a whole?
The Commercial centres in Peasmarsh i.e. Jempsons’store are all on one site and part of one enterprise and run by one person and could be affected anytime by other commercial realities such as a new supermarket in Rye and that person wishing to retire?

Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other Sussex Villages so does not need large scale development.
The wishes of the Villagers expressed democratically in the PNDP said that development should be small scale or infill.
Already many people moved from Hastings and Brighton do not like living in a rural area with a limited bus service and no access to local employment.
Some Bus funding is going to be withdrawn which will add to these problems. Many people placed in the Village from elsewhere do not look after their properties and gardens are full of rubbish plus the number of vehicles parked on roads and pavements.

Qu.47 - I have major objections to 3 of the site allocations in Peasmarsh
PE2 Land to the rear of Pippins,
PE3 Tanyard Field
PE5 Malthouse business park

Qu.47 PE2 - Firstly a house has to be demolished to make room for an entrance. This is situated just past the top of a hill making it dangerous for traffic coming both ways plus the development will add several more cars accessing the Main Street.. It will be yet another green field site with footpaths lost to the Village. As for the projected Play Area Peasmarsh already has 3 recreation areas all nearer the School.
Qu.47 PE3 - Tanyard Field
This is not a “New Site”. The current Landowner has been seeking permission for this site for more than 40 years and it has been rejected on all applications including a rejection by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I understand that one such objection by Rother Distric Council on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P can be found in your files!
The reason why this site was rejected still exist today.
The site was investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the Village working group and independent consultants and subsequently rejected.
And the democratic referendum accepted by Rother District Council endorsed this rejection.
I would point out the following reasons
1. The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/ High Weald National Landscape. Any development would be harmful to the character and park like appearance of the landscape viewed not only as one enters the Village from the direction of Rye Foreign but from many other locations around the Village. In fact it has been known in the Village as The Park as well as Tanyard Field. This would result in damage to the visual amenity of the entire Village.
2. A large number of houses would lose amenity and privacy.
3. Acceptance of the site would encourage other unsuitable applications nearby
4. The Landowner put forward planning applications for 15 houses. Seeing as the same Landowner has put forward many applications for up to 100 houses in the past, permission would only encourage more applications.
5. A nearby listed building would be impacted.
6. The Field has a historic right of way across the Western end of the field leading to the Church situated at the top of the Village and vistas from this path would be lost for ever.
7. The field slopes down very steeply making it totally unsuitable for housing and would exacerbate the drainage problems experience below this field. The drains simply cannot cope.
8. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps and they remain today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface impermeable so heavy rain runs off causing problems and damage to properties on Main Street which lies along the Northern Boundary of the field.
9. When the Landowner sold off turf from the field the Horse and Cart pub ( a listed building at the bottom of the field) experienced flooding, as did several properties nearby. Centuries ago the place where the current Village lies was under water and the old Village was situated around the Domesday Church at the top of the Village. One can only imagine the devastation that would ensure for properties below this field in houses were built on it.?
10. Some years ago a Sinkhole suddenly appeared in School Lane in the road adjacent to the Horse and Cart Car park. This hole was about 6 feet deep and one could see water and cables etc. Very scary!
11. The vehicular access to this site is unsafe and inadequate. There are two access points. Towards the Eastern End the main access leads onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the type, speed and volume of traffic on the Main Road, where the 30MPH speed limit achieved after many requests form Villagers, is often ignore to the despair of inhabitants of the Village. At the Western End there is a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic leading onto School Lane at a particularly congested area between the School and The horse and cart Pub. Any new housing would result in a huge increase in car use and traffic contrary to the National Environmental and Transport policies.
12. This ancient green field site with ancient woodland surround contains and support many species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such a Hedgehogs, Bats, Woodpeckers, Tawny Owls and Badgers and encourages butterflies and insects, not mention the loss for faming as this this field has been used for cattle and sheep.

Qu.47 PE5 Malthouse Business Park - The loss of small established light industrial and commercial units is clearly harmful. It removes local work opportunities and facilities used by the Village. Why would Rother District Council seek to take away employment opportunities?

General Comment on the whole proposed plan.
It is long, wordy and difficult to understand. I feel this is a deliberate strategy so people will give up and not make objections.
Also access to this Plan is not easy nor making a response to it. Many older people live in the Village and do not have access to the internet.
It is very important is keeping access to dark skies- good for mental health and wellbeing.
Personally I think every landowner or builder putting forward planning proposals should set them out clearly in a letter sent to every house in the Village

I would first of all like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns regarding your proposed future development plans in this area.

I am convinced that with the increased housing developments the infrastructure CANNOT cope now , let alone with any further houses being built.

I know there is a need for more housing and other essentials....BUT the infrastructure NEEDS to be put in place first before ANY additional development takes place otherwise

the problems will escalate.

Southern Water is well aware that the sewage system needs to be upgraded.



Thanking you in anticipation.

An a/c of infrastructure concerns noted in the 2024 Plan, nothing changed, things are deteriorating. Sunday bus services are being cut on the 313 line. Walking the A268 is unrealistic. No cycle lanes. Rural roads are full of ‘potholes’ damaging cars and causing motorbike accidents.
No GP service in Peasmarsh, nearest hospital is the Conquest, a long bus journey. Care home - Peasmarsh Place very expensive.
Peasmarsh is subject to surface water flooding. Rain water runs into the sewage system causing sewage deposits in streets & gardens. Development granted on Main Street, no mains drainage, attenuation tank to be installed reliant on residents maintaining the system. Attenuation systems delay the flow into a sewage system that is not fit for purpose.
Regular electricity cuts/water pipes bursting.
Development on greenbelt affecting nature conservation/wildlife.
How does the above fit into Live well locally/green to the core !!

Peasmarsh has limited access to public transport with a bus running between Rye and Northiam. So a car is necessary. It is already hard to get a Doctors appointment in Rye and with the recent winter, the back garden of my house has been flooded most of the winter. If more houses are built up on the hill, it is only going to make matters worse for the existing residents of Peasmarsh. We don't have the appropriate drainage systems in place.

The development strategy provides a fragmented, unresearched and often poor analysis of the existing infrastructures. The approach taken requires a more detailed, locally agreed audit of local infrastructures, before it can accurately assess what development each parish can realistically manage.

Bexhill, where majority of new development takes place, already lacks infrastructure for the thousands of new dwellings built in recent years, adding another, over 8,000 will be detrimental to residents health and wellbeing. Residents already are struggling with obtaining GP appointments, hospital treatment, dentistry. Leisure centres are literally crumbling and the Council has promised for over ten years to provide new so residents can support their health. The sewer system according to the Council and Water Company is not fit for purpose’ meaning we have sewage entering our beaches/seas. Over 8,000 new dwellings could easily mean over 25,000 new residents.

Infrastructure needs to be fixed before building any more houses. It is woefully inadequate currently.

Crowhurst has a railway station but I cannot reach it without getting into my car and I am mobility-impaired. Apart from the railway public transport in my area is non-existent. I tried the Flexibus but if it has already been booked to go elsewhere it may be of no use for another person’s needs. I can see a need for a fleet of minibuses to travel between the villages and towns – with a regular schedule of journeys – similar to the Wealdlink Community Transport services (https://www.wealdlink.co.uk/ ). The rural roads in the area are quite hazardous. The default speed limit on these roads is 60 mph i.e. unless there is a lower limit on a particular stretch of road, but it is disregarded frequently. It should be reduced to 40 mph and enforced ruthlessly with heavy fines for infringements.

Question 5 - Infrastructure Needs and Priorities
Position
HGPC welcomes the opportunity to comment on infrastructure needs across the district. The Parish
Council's observations relate primarily to Northern Rother, and specifically to the infrastructure
constraints that make Hurst Green an unsuitable location for significant growth - but the issues raised
also reflect wider problems across the sub-area that the Local Plan must address.
Highway Infrastructure
The condition of the road network in Northern Rother is a serious and documented problem. The A21
and all key routes connecting the sub-area to the wider road network - including routes towards the
M25 - pass through or close to Hurst Green. The cumulative impact of the existing traffic volume,
combined with the poor structural condition of rural roads across the sub-area, makes this one of the
least well-served parts of East Sussex in terms of strategic road connectivity.
Potholed and poorly maintained roads are not merely an inconvenience - they are a direct safety risk
to all road users and represent a constraint on the viability of any significant development without prior
and substantial investment. The Local Plan must demonstrate that the infrastructure required to
support its proposed growth is deliverable and funded. In Northern Rother, that case has not been
made.
Hurst Green sits at the junction of the A21, A229, and A265. All three routes out of the village - north
and south on the A21, east on the A229, and west on the A265 - are A-roads carrying high volumes of
traffic at speeds incompatible with the absence of safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. This is
not a settlement that can accommodate major growth without first resolving its strategic highway
position. The Council's own Cabinet Report acknowledges that A21 improvements are currently
unfunded.
Of note, Hurst Green is one of very few settlements (and by far the largest) on the A21 that is not
bypassed. Additionally, having a primary school situated directly on the A21, and which is poorly
accessed with a narrow pavement on the western side of the A21 only, adds to the considerable road
safety and health risks the A21 represents to residents of Hurst Green. There has never been a
stronger argument for dualling this stretch of the A21 carriageway. The community’s Neighbourhood
Plan Vision states that the Parish will “seek to remove all non-local traffic from the Parish’s existing
roads, creating an environment that reduces the speed of motor traffic and encourages walking,
cycling and low carbon transport over car-use for shorter journeys.” Every additional dwelling directed
at Hurst Green without first resolving the A21 makes that vision harder to achieve, not easier.
Active Travel Infrastructure
There is no safe cycling provision anywhere in Northern and North-West Rother. The roads are too
narrow, too fast, and too heavily used by HGVs to support cycling without dedicated infrastructure.
There are no footpaths connecting settlements. Walking between villages - even short distances -
requires using A-roads with no pavements, no lighting, and no safe crossing points.
This is not a marginal concern. National planning policy (NPPF paragraph 110) requires that
development should be located and designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and
create access to high-quality walking and cycling networks. A strategy that directs major growth to
settlements where these conditions do not exist, and where there is no funded plan to create them, is
not consistent with national policy.
HGPC requests that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan sets out specific and funded proposals for active
travel improvements in the Northern Rother sub-area before the Regulation 19 stage. In the absence
of such proposals, the housing allocations directed at settlements such as Hurst Green cannot be
considered sound. This matters not only as a planning policy issue but as a fundamental community
health concern. The Neighbourhood Plan Vision commits the Parish to becoming “a thriving, safe and
friendly village within the High Weald which fosters a healthy lifestyle and encourages residents to live
active, social and meaningful lives.” An infrastructure framework that cannot provide safe routes for
4
children to walk to school, or residents to cycle to a neighbour’s village, is incompatible with that
vision.
Water Supply and Drainage
Hurst Green and the surrounding area have experienced persistent and well-documented problems
with water supply. South East Water has faced significant challenges in maintaining supply reliability
across parts of East Sussex, and local residents have experienced supply interruptions and pressure
issues. These are not trivial inconveniences - they reflect structural capacity constraints that must be
resolved before additional significant housing development is appropriate.
Sewerage and drainage infrastructure in the village is similarly constrained. The surface water
flooding associated with the HG4 site - including the lake and watercourse - has not been assessed in
an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment. The allocation has been made without any demonstrated
evidence that the necessary utilities infrastructure can be delivered.
Conclusion on Question 5
The infrastructure constraints facing Hurst Green and Northern Rother are severe, documented, and
in most cases unfunded. The Local Plan must not proceed to Regulation 19 with significant growth
allocations in this sub-area until a credible, funded Infrastructure Delivery Plan is in place that
demonstrates how these constraints will be resolved. HGPC requests that the Council addresses this
before the next consultation stage.

South East Water are already warning that they will struggle to supply water for the Kent area around Tunbridge Wells, due to increased housing. As
Battle uses the same water company, this is a real concern if all of the homes in the local plan are built.
The emergency services have been stretched for years and building on natural soakaways will, inevitably, cause other problems like flooding.
No thought has been made to protect the wildlife in the area. Why is it ok to destroy their homes just so we can have new homes built?
There must be houses in the area that are empty or can be compulsory purchased to re-purpose or refurbish.
We should be recycling houses instead of building new ones.

We definitely need more infrastructure of every sort. It is the one Rother, East Sussex and highways are letting us down. But with the immense pressure councils are under in funding would this ever be addressed .

As the delivery of the Hastings bypass shows, infrastructure can be difficult to complete on time. Infrastructure must be put in BEFORE development, and much of this is road access, as it is unlikely that, in a largely rural area, people will travel by other methods. Cycling is not, at present, a safe way of travel due to the road infrastructure and repair. Rother has made almost no investment in cycling, because it is not value for money: it would be helpful to stop writing the green wish list and replace with actual commitments and actual pots of money. Given that Rother will not exist beyond this year, I wonder if any programme would be open to legal challenge, as the temptation to act against local interest, in favour of a tick box for central government targets must be high.

Object to the housing due to the lack of infrastructure . Roads in battle cannot cope at the moment with traffic
Small village which needs to remain as it is

Existing and planned infrastructure is insufficient to support current communities without further development. Roads are appalling, public transport is infrequent and unreliable, health providers are struggling to meet demand and education settings are under funded.

RDC needs to improve infrastructure before more houses are built in Peasmarsh. At the moment, much of the village is not on mains drainage, and even those that are have problems as the infrastructure has not been cared for properly. In the recent rains in February, there was surface flooding in many places, and it impacted on our broadband - I was without internet for 2 days and I work from home, which made things very difficult.

Also, there is an insufficient bus service that currently serves Peasmarsh. For anyone who lives here, a car therefore is pretty much essential, which means that more houses will produce more cars - more fumes, more traffic, and more damage to our already problematic and pot-holed roads.

Robertsbridge is a rural community which is already dominated by housing above infrastructure, facilities and commerce.

-Untreated sewage is being dumped into the Rother at an unacceptable and dangerous level.

- We are a subject to hosepipe bans for a large part of the year due to lack of water supply.

- We often experience loss of water pressure and supply due to poor infrastructure and high demand.

- We frequently experience loss of electricity due to poor infrastructure and maintenance.

- Our broadband services are already at capacity and we do not even yet have FTTP with speeds only around 30-40mbps

- The roads in and around the village are already congested, especially at peak times often gridlocked especially when there are HGVs/buses passing through.

- There is insufficient parking in the village, especially around the primary school, making crossing the roads hazardous. The narrow roads contribute to this.

The infrastructure improvements should come first ahead of any further housing construction. Once excess capacity is on place then expansion to fill this can be considered and not the other way around. Choked roads, water and waste services struggling, doctors and schools full to capacity will not be improved as has been shown previously such promises were made when planning for houses was granted.

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) appears disproportionately focused on towns, with insufficient consideration given to rural settlements. This is particularly concerning given that a significant proportion of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts are generated within rural communities.
Parish Councils do not appear to have been meaningfully consulted in shaping the IDP priorities, which risks:

• Misalignment between infrastructure provision and growth; In Catsfield the proposed sites have limited water supply and some have no access to sewage disposal.
• Under-investment in rural infrastructure;
• Reduced community confidence in the planning process, in particular cycling & walking, and public transport driving the development of over scale housing in village centres with no realistic access to public transport or safe cycling on rural roads.

A more balanced and consultative approach is required.

Current infrastructure appears to be deteriorating and not improving, it is not keeping pace with the current need of the community, without the added pressure this plan is proposing. I appreciate that this plan acknowledges the need for better supporting infrastructure alongside new housing development, however I remain unconvinced that this will take place. Increased building and population growth in this region, alongside the ongoing lack of supporting infrastructure, will lead to a further deterioration in the lived environment and have a detrimental effect on quality of life of the residents, both present and future. In addition to the lack of current good quality infrastructure, many of the areas that Rother are proposing to expand were not designed to accommodate the daily needs/movements of so many people and trying to squeeze more in is like trying to stretch a too small shoe to fit. I therefore object to the planned expansion.

The transport constraint of Battle prevent any major development particularly to the south of the town (as most people travel through Battle to access the A21- where most work is located or to access the town facilities). I would suggest the level of growth would lead to a severe transport situation where a mile or two journey can take up to 45 mins