There are massive problems with the infrastructure. the primary school is full the bus service is apparently going to be reduced or cancelled there is a waiting list for the only Doctors surgery. Services are already stretched how can building any more homes actually assist this?

My response comes from living in a village on the eastern border of Rother and the huge expense to rectify all the issues
Transport/movement lack cycle paths, pedestrian paths eg to village school, public transport poor and scheduled services are not reliable, road network is poorly maintained.
Community/cultural facilities playing field is developing large sink holes due to unmaintained drainage system costing the Parish Council £10s of thousands for remedial work. Other facilities 15+ miles away.
Education/Health - 16-18 education not provided by local Sussex schools, secondary health care people expected to travel 15-30+ miles to access - often fully reliant on family as public transport not provided at right times
Infrastructure/flooding poor - eg local church at highest point in village has to pump water out when digging new graves
Utilities - close to collapse of reliable services
Emergency service response times are challenging

TW agree fully that it is vital that growth and new development in Rother is appropriately supported by infrastructure. It is essential to ensure there is a clear framework in place to not only identify the different types of infrastructure required now and over the long-term, but also to facilitate the delivery of this where and when it is needed. The Local Plan must play a key coordinating role in this respect, ensuring new investment in infrastructure is aligned with the Development Strategy for the district.

On this significant issue, TW would urge the Council to engage fully with infrastructure providers now, to enable adequate plans and funding to be put in place to ensure the delivery of the necessary infrastructure to support the necessary housing growth in the District.

TW are pleased to note that the Council will continue to work with infrastructure providers and others to update and refine the IDP as work on the Local Plan progresses. This will ensure they can take account of the latest demographic projections as well as the Council’s position on the Local Plan housing requirement, spatial development strategy and portfolio of site allocations, to ensure that new development is served by the right level of infrastructure in the right places. TW also note that a final Draft IDP will be published at the Regulation 19 stage consultation. There should be alignment between the spatial strategy – i.e. housing growth and provision of new infrastructure.

However, as noted by the Council, the IDP also needs to consider how infrastructure will be funded, to ensure that it can be delivered to support development in the plan period. Generally, infrastructure will be funded through a combination of sources including the Community Infrastructure Levy, planning obligations attached to planning permissions and external funding sources. In that regard, TW would emphasise that it is imperative that the IDP is concluded quickly and that this then feeds into the strategic viability assessment to ensure that these costs are fully taken on board when considering whether new housing development is viable and what level of affordable housing can be viably achieved.

RDC have done nothing to improve the infrastructure following the ongoing and completed developments that have/will increase the number of dwellings significantly. There have been no new doctors, dentists or schools. All the above words are empty with no specific detail other than a 'living IDP' which is meaningless without substance.

See individual responses answering questions 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, 47 and 68.

Public Transport in Peasmarsh is poor and bus services are being cut further. In addition bus services do not link with train services in Rye.

I am sending a series of comments on the Draft Local Plan (2025- 2042) in respect of highways and traffic and secondly in respect of Foul Sewerage, as plain text. My comments are detailed and rather long running to 40 paragraphs. But I am unsure if you are able to accept these as an attachment.

Please note that these comments should not be regarded as an "Objection" to the Plan. They are a note of additional actions that in my view are essential for the plan to be effective.

Comments on the Rother Draft local plan 2025 – 2042 (Bexhill area)
Introduction
1. This paper is in response to the request for comment from Rother District Council Planning department on the Draft Local Plan for Rother District 2025 to 2042. Comments are offered on the topics of (a) Traffic and Highways and (b) Foul water Sewerage.

2. The comment is restricted to the area of West Bexhill, in particular, the areas named in the draft Local Plan as BX20 to BX 28 inclusive.


3. Development areas are defined in West Bexhill which could accommodate 1,923 houses plus commercial space resulting in substantial additional traffic throughout the day and especially in peak hours. However, there are no proposals associated with the local plan for any highway capacity enhancements before the developments occur, or contiguous with the rate of development. The main road in West Bexhill is the A259 which is also part of the national Strategic Road Network (SRN). If the housing developments proceed without highway improvements connected to the main road network chaos and bottlenecks on the A 259 will rapidly ensue.

4. There is a substantial mismatch of the proposals for additional housing in the Draft Local Plan and the proposals for access and highway capacity. There appear to be no proposals for enhancements to the highway capacity within the area of West Bexhill and no definitive proposals for the financing of enhancement of the road network within a defined timescale that makes any sense with the proposals for housing within the Draft Plan. The plan makes no sense to increase the traffic demand on A259 which is already overloaded at the principal junctions by 2026 and has been shown in previous studies to be 10 per cent overloaded by 2028 with existing committed developments. The result of additional traffic overload will be very substantial delays which will not be consistent with the purpose of the SRN to serve the economy of the wider region. In this region of the south coast the A259 serves an important economic function and connects the region with major ports and with the Channel Tunnel. Providing housing areas which result in severe traffic bottlenecks on the SRN is not in the national interest nor in the day to day interest of any residents or new residents of the housing.

5. Background papers published under “supporting evidence base” which is attached to the Draft Plan, include a report on possibilities for a West Bexhill multi-modal corridor but nothing definitive is proposed. Meanwhile the technical studies carried out in connection with various currently approved and operational housing developments (for example at RR/2018/3127/P) reveal that the highway network will be operating at a surcharged capacity in peak hours by the time Clavering Park is fully occupied. This particularly applies to A259 Barnhorn Road, the Little Common roundabout and A259 Little Common Road.
Additional dwellings in the Draft Plan with proposed access off A259 Barnhorn Road
6. The proposed development areas BX20 to BX28 are all shown with access to be arranged from A259 Barnhorn Road. These areas have sufficient space for a total of 1,923 dwellings plus 3,000 sqm of commercial space which may include tourist accommodation and a primary school as well as some playing fields. These areas are all more than 1 kilometre from Little Common even if direct pedestrian and cycle routes are provided and a great deal further from Bexhill.

7. BX 21 and BX26 are reasonably close to bus stops on Barnhorn Road but they are very small areas with capacity for only 45 houses in total. They may generate a small public transport demand. BX22 is larger and reasonably close to Barnhorn Road but it is not at all clear at present how access to Barnhorn road will be arranged. BX23 and BX24 are not close to public transport on Barnhorn Road, not close to the Little Common local centre and not close to any other major attractors. These two areas are north of Rosewood Park. Rosewood Park benefits from a direct route to Little Common from Stowe Drive via Oakleigh Road and Chestnut Walk restricted by width and bollards to pedestrian and cycle use. This connection encourages pedestrian, cycle and some motor cycle traffic and consequently reduces the vehicular trips via Brooklands Road. But the centres of BX23 and BX24 are considerably further away from the buses, school’s and the local centre. Vehicular trip rates by car will be significantly higher than found in Rosewood Park. However the rate at which people will be able to get out onto Barnhorn Road will be controlled by the traffic signals.

8. The centres of BX27 and BX28 are remote from all attractors. Residents in these development areas are predominantly going to be dependent on car travel. A vehicular travel demand which will probably amount to a peak hour trip rate of approximately 0.6 trips per household on the basis of the average of recent observation of the morning peak period trips from Rosewood Park and the trip rate used at the current development at Clavering Walk.

9. From current observation of peak period journeys from Rosewood Park 90% will travel towards Bexhill / St Leonards / Hastings. There does not appear to be any good reason to assume a markedly different distribution of travel demands. This means an additional total peak hour flow of over 800 vehicles per hour in the A259 west Bexhill corridor of which some 780 would be travelling towards Bexhill / St Leonards/ Hastings. Such a volume of extra traffic will cause a major problem on the A259 Barnhorn Road approach at Little Common roundabout (LCR) and probably at the Brooklands Road signalised junction as well as at the A259 / A269/ London Road signalised junction at Bexhill.

Traffic and Highways
Effect on Barnhorn road and LCR operation - A259 at Little Common.

10. The A259 at Little Common is part of the Strategic National Highway network and is therefore owned and managed by National Highways. The A259 and the A27 are the principal transport corridor which connects the coastal region of Sussex towns (Worthing, Shoreham, Hove, Brighton, Newhaven, Eastbourne, Polegate, Hailsham, Bexhill, St Leonards, Hastings, Ashford, Folkstone, etc), with major ports and the Channel Tunnel and the port of Dover and short crossing ferries to Continental Europe. A major function of the National Highway network is to connect main centres of population to important ports and it is therefore desirable for the A259 route to be kept reasonably free flowing.

9. The effective peak traffic capacity of Barnhorn Road (A259) is dictated by the capacity of the major junctions. In effect the LCR and the traffic signal controlled junction for Rosewood Park at Brooklands Road. The A269/A259, London Road junction operation also affects the capacity of A259 but this is further into Bexhill.

10. At the LCR the capacity on the A259 corridor depends on the geometrics of the layout, which affects the drivers speed of reaction to gaps and critically, the volume of circulating traffic on the roundabout which, under the UK’s system has priority over the approaching traffic streams. At the Barnhorn Road approach the circulating flows have priority and conflict with the approaching traffic. There is a significant volume of traffic circulating, in particular traffic right turning from A259 Little Common Road into Chestnut Walk and into Peartree Lane as well as traffic from Cooden Sea road going to Chestnut Walk, Peartree lane and turning right to A259 Little Common Road. By 2028 this circulating flow crossing the Barnhorn Road traffic totals to more than 380 per hour in the AM peak (6 per minute) as shown in the reference RR/2018/3127/P.

11. Similarly the circulating traffic conflicting with the Little Common Road approach to the roundabout is comprised of right turners making a variety of movemens and straight traffic from Chestnut Walk and Peartree Lane moving to Cooden Sea Road. By 2028 these movements are forecast to amount to over 9 per minute.

12. The redesign of the roundabout and its approaches prepared for the Clavering Park development makes maximum use of the available space whilst maintaining the minimum required space for pedestrians and mobility buggies etc, of which there are a number. There is no scope for further widening of the Barnhorn approach to the Little Common roundabout (LCR) without property acquisition and major redevelopment.

13. The analysis of traffic at roundabouts is carried out with the ARCADY computer suite of programmes (Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay), developed in the UK over the last 40 years and acknowledged, and widely used throughout the world. This programme suite has been used to analyse the LCR in connection with several recent local developments (Rosewood Park, and most recently Clavering Walk amongst them). The ARCADY analysis carried out for the current Clavering Walk development clearly shows that the higher the flows of circulating traffic on the LCR the lesser the traffic capacity of the Barnhorn Road approach. Over the AM peak hour the effective capacity is estimated at 1273 vehicles. these capacity estimates are lower than the ESCC estimates given in the background papers published with the Draft Local Plan.

Traffic signals at the LCR

14. ESCC suggest the traffic signals to control all or part of the LCR possibly with a reduction in the entries from 5 to 4, may enhance traffic capacity. But at the Barnhorn road approach on the circulating carriageway of the roundabout itself there is space only for a maximum of 3 - 4 vehicles to queue at signals without interfering with the exit of other traffic, assuming drivers position their vehicles carefully. The opportunity to signalise this approach is rendered difficult by the volume of circulating traffic here. A meaningful enhancement to capacity could very likely only be achieved by a substantial redesign and reconstruction of the junction including the movement of the war memorial and rose garden on the present central island.


Forecast peak hour traffic in 2028

15. The forecast for 2028 traffic at the LCR approach in the AM peak (taking account of committed developments at Rosewood park, Spindlewood Drive, Clavering Walk, and Woodhurst Grove west of Ashridge Court) is 1372 vehicles one way eastbound and 1242 vehicles westbound. Making a total of 2614 vehicles two way AM peak hour flow. However but the effective AM peak hour capacity on the Barnhorn road approach is only 1273 vehicles. The Barnhorn road approach is therefore 8% overcapacity even after the Clavering Walk improvements to the roundabout have been carried out. The excess traffic will be queuing at the Barnhorn Road approach to LCR at the end of the peak hour.

16. In the current year, 2026 the queues on Barnhorn Road in the peak periods are frequently seen to extend well beyond Kites Nest Walk, a length of 500 metres.

17. On the Little Common Road approach to the roundabout the traffic capacity is even less then on the Barnhorn Road approach. And the traffic capacity is reduced even more by the presence of the Pelican signalised pedestrian crossing. In the AM peak hour the Little Common Road approach is at least 7% overcapacity in the 2028 traffic forecasts. The excess traffic will be queuing at the end of the hour.

The Peak hour by 2042
18. To have a measure of the peak hour flows by 2042 one must consider the effect of long distance traffic growth and the effect of developments BX21 to BX28 all gaining access from Barnhorn road have to be added:
a) BX21 and BX22 south of Barnhorn road are estimated to accommodate 420 houses and 3000sqm of commercial space, which may be tourist accommodation;
b) BX23 – BX28 are all north of Barnhorn road and are estimated to have capacity to accommodate 1523 houses plus a primary school.

19. These development sites are more remote from the district centre at Little Common and the town centre at Bexhill than either Rosewood Park or Clavering Walk. Although good and direct cycling routes may be included in planning these future developments the disadvantages of the British inclement wet weather cannot be avoided. Thus the movements from the new housing developments here will be skewed towards car use. Some trip rates used recently in west Bexhill developments and observed from traffic counts, are shown at Appendix A

20. Considering an AM peak hour vehicle trip rate of 0.475 per dwelling (the Rosewood Park/ Clavering Walk average) and 90% turning towards Bexhill, Hastings and St Leonards, as observed at Rosewood Park in the current spring, then the total additional demand would therefore be for a peak hour movement of nearly 800 additional vehicles in the eastbound direction only.

21. The Barnhorn road approach at Little Common is shown in 2028 estimates to be 8% over capacity in the AM peak and this additional demand would result in a theoretical traffic queue at the end of the peak hour longer than 4 kms. This queue would extend beyond Rosewood Park (Brooklands Road). The long queue would therefore affect the operation of the Rosewood Park junction. This would clearly be unacceptable and it is likely that some development would not occur due to demand suppression, also other existing narrow and unsuited routes would come into informal use.

West Bexhill Muti-modal Corridor Study

22. Anticipating this highway capacity problem East Sussex County Council initiated a preliminary high level overview study of the west Bexhill area and commissioned Messrs Jacobs to carry out a study in 2022. This study was titled “West Bexhill multi-modal corridor and low carbon growth area”. The modes considered included walking, cycling and vehicles including electric vehicles and shared transport. This study considered a variety of routes for a connection between A269 and A 259 which are shown in Figure 2 in that report, including
· An inner route comprising improvements to St Mary’s Lane, Turkey road and Pear Tree lane to rejoin the A259 at Little Common roundabout;
· A central route comprising a new road from A269 skirting Chestnut Meadow Country Park, joining an improved Pear Tree lane (through the Highwoods SSSI) to its junction with Whydown road, then following Whydown road and a new road behind Sandhurst lane properties to Coneyburrow lane then following an improved Coneyburrow lane to its junction with A259 near the Apple filling station;
· An outer route taking the new road alignment adjoining Chestnut Meadow Country Park then turning north-west to cross Pear Tree lane and reach the Rother/Wealden boundary, then skirting Highwoods SSSI and the southern edge of the Pashley Farm’s Solar panels array to cross Whydown road and continue through Wealden to meet A259 near where it crosses the East Stream in the Pevensey levels drainage system just below the Custom Café.

23. The inner route serves no useful purpose as far as the proposed new housing areas is concerned. The inner route does not serve any of the housing development areas BX21 to BX28 and feeds all the traffic back into the LCR.

24. The outer route operating as a west Bexhill bypass would attract some through traffic away from the congested junctions on A259 at Brooklands Road (Rosewood Park). Little Common, and A2690 Combe Valley Way by attracting traffic bound for A2690 on to A269 and Haven Brook Avenue and creating a second east – west route in west Bexhill. The further out this route is aligned the lesser proportion of traffic it will attract. However this route as set out in the study would cross some 2 kilometres of the Peveney Levels towards Whydown and may encounter significant objections. Moving the alignment to higher ground towards Hill Farm may be possible. The alignment would then become very similar to that of the central route.

25. The Study comments that route permutations are also possible and a combination of the Central route and outer route north of Whydown may enable additional housing areas to be located.

26. However the West Bexhill corridor Study seems to have foundered at present over the preliminary estimates of the cost not being thought to be affordable. The County Council should seek Government support as the need for this route arises from the need for new housing as set out by the Department of Housing, Local Communities and levelling up/

Reassignment of long distance through traffic

27. In the Transport Assessment for the Woodhurst Grove, (Park Lane Developments) site (see RR/2016/3206/P) the forecast 2026 AM peak hour traffic flow eastbound was 1042 vehicles. This location is on the Bexhill side of Northeye. Considering traffic bound for destinations in Bexhill and the Bulverhythe/ St Leonards areas it is not likely that the outer route, peeling off A259 as far out as the East Stream would attract more than about 500 vehicles in the AM peak. This would include the 24% extra traffic attracted to A259 at the time of the first opening of the Combe Valley Way 10 years ago.

28. The central route is the most interesting for new housing areas. BX23, BX24, BX27 and BX28 have boundaries directly abutting the route. It would be possible for all of these four sites to gain access from a widened and improved Coneyburrow Lane and the northern part of Sandhurst Lane as long as the access to A269 is completed because much of the traffic would be heading for Hastings or the industrial areas in north St Leonards via Combe Valley Way. The central route would also attract through traffic amounting to about 500 vehicles eastbound in the AM peak hour originating west of the Custom Cafe. The future AM peak traffic volume on this newly improved road alignment would be about 1000 vehicles per hour eastbound in the AM peak. There is scope for some limited additional housing in small areas adjacent to Whydown.

Conclusion

29. As proposed the additional housing in BX22 to BX28 would completely overwhelm the existing highway network to the extent of being theoretically some 80% overloaded by 2042. The peak period traffic queue on A259 Barnhorn road at LCR would routinely reach a length of +/- 4 kms. Such a queue would be back along A259 as far as the B2095 junction, the turning for Ninfield and Battle!

30. The housing proposals on sites BX23 to BX28 can only realistically proceed if a Little Common western bypass is built and completed to a satisfactory standard. If a bypass is achieved to connect A259 with A269 and Haven Brook Avenue then the necessary redistribution of traffic can be achieved. The total AM peak hour volume of traffic remaining on Barnhorn road, including traffic heading for Little Common from BX27 and BX28 and eastbound traffic from BX22 would be about 1160 – 1250 vehicles at the LCR approach, which would be within capacity.


31. But these elements of the Plan will only work if the central route of the West Bexhill Study, or a hybrid of the central route corridor is completed with a vehicular carriageway of appropriate width for heavy goods vehicles and suitable cycle track and footways through to the A269 with a good connection to Haven Brook Avenue and Combe Valley Way. With this addition to the highway network and reassignment of traffic movements, the system as a whole would be brought back into balance in west Bexhill.

32. If the central route corridor is not completed through to A269 then the development of these new housing areas will stall and the highway system entirely dependent on A 259 alone will be in chaos.
Appendix A. Trip rates per dwelling used recently in West Bexhill [Table]
Notes (i) by Ardent for Bellway at Clavering Walk Development
(ii) by Milestone for Persimmon at Spindlewood Drive Development
(iii) From an AM traffic count on Brooklands road at Barnhorn road by Lawson in March 2026
At Rosewood Park a trip rate of 0.386 vehicular trips per household leaving the site and 0.196 trips per household entering the site was observed in March 2026. The traffic count at Brooklands Road / Barnhorn road junction was taken on Wednesday 18th March 2026, the AM peak hour volume of traffic turning from Brooklands road (Rosewood Park) towards Bexhill and Hastings was 90.1%. Only 9.9% were observed turning towards Pevensey and Eastbourne.

Foul Sewerage
33. The construction, ownership and maintenance of the sewerage system is the responsibility of Southern Water (SW) in Bexhill. Southern Water therefore ultimately has responsibility for foul sewers in the Barnhorn road corridor. However SW have responsibility for water supply and sewerage over a large part of southern England and are no doubt busy in many parts of their system. There is a need for additional foul sewer capacity in the Barnhorn road corridor. At present the sewerage operates as a partially combined system of foul and surface water drainage over parts of west Bexhill. In particular, this applies to parts of Barnhorn Road from Kites Nest Walk upstream.

34. SW are by law required to accept discharges into their system of sewers but they frequently do not react comprehensively to new developments. For example, the Rosewood Park sewers are connected via a rising main to the Barnhorn road sewer at manhole Reference 5801 near the Brooklands Road junction. Effluent is pumped from the pump house sump overnight when the Barnhorn Road residential flow is low but this strategy can be tripped up when it coincides with a prolonged heavy rainstorm that results in surcharge of the combined sewer. These surcharges can cause localised flooding as has happened several times recently. Also, the discharges from the Clavering Park development of 70 dwellings to a manually controlled sump at Clavering Walk prior to a rising main can put certain low lying existing residences at risk of flooding.

35. There is no sewerage capacity in Coneyburrow Lane or in the northern part of Sandhurst lane.

36. The existing sewer in Barnhorn Road has a head at the manhole outside No 160 Barnhorn Road and that now also serves the 29 house Woodhurst Grove development. This sewer was only a 150mm diameter pipe at the head of the sewer line enlarged to 225mm diameter from manhole 2701 outside No141 Barnhorn Road down as far as the manhole No 1802 outside the house called Little Lodge, No80 Barnhorn Road. From this point to the Little Common roundabout the sewer is reinforced and enlarged to 300mm and subsequently to 450mm. Considering the section of 225m sewer is serving some 80 houses, several of which are in multiple occupation as large care homes, plus Rosewood Park and Woodhurst Grove it is small wonder that the sewer is sometimes discharging under surcharge conditions. For this sewer to accept discharges from a further 1923 houses will certainly cause major problems of flooding especially for areas where the sewer is acting as a combined surface water and foul drain.

37. It is probable that the section between Brooklands Road and No 80 Barnhorn road, a distance of some 700 metres, needs further reinforcing and enlarging to 300mm diameter, as well as sections further down stream in Meads Road and Maple Walk. National Highways may have a view on the A259 Trunk road being so extensively dug up with major consequent traffic disruption on a section of the Strategic Road network. There may be an alternative possibility to lay a bypass sewer in the corridor of Brooklands Road, Stow Drive and Oakfield Road to enter the reinforced existing sewerage system at Chestnut Walk. This sewer bypass could pick up the Rosewood Park’s existing rising main to relieve the Barnhorn Road sewer of the flow from the Rosewood Park pump house.

38. It is to be noted that after an initial desk study of any outline development proposals where there is a probability of connection to the SW main sewerage system, SW requests a Condition on any planning approval if this initial study indicates an increased risk of foul flooding. This Condition may involve a substantial delay in the occupation of the development. Any sewer network reinforcement that is deemed necessary to mitigate this has to be provided by SW. If necessary to establish the extent of any works required the operation of the existing system may be monitored and S W will carry out detailed network modelling. That review of the network will take time. In complex cases requiring questions of feasibility, detail modelling and design, land negotiations and finally construction S W may require more than 2 years before some housing can be occupied. The sewerage system west of Little Common centre has the potential to be complex and therefore a delay of this order is likely for these west Bexhill development areas.

39. In any event the present head of the sewer outside No 160 Barnhorn Road is at an invert level of approximately 25 metres. Since the ground level falls to about 22 metres at the Corneyburrow lane junction the foul sewerage of BX23, Bx24, BX27 and BX28 will require sumps, rising mains and pump houses to enter the main Bexhill sewerage system.

40. Rother have shown a number of background studies and papers supporting the Local Plan in their “supporting evidence base” published coincident with the Draft Plan. But there is nothing regarding foul sewerage within the supporting evidence other than to record that it is the responsibility of SW.

41. It therefore behoves Rother to ensure that suitable foul sewer capacity is available within the Barnhorn Road corridor for the areas identified at BX20 to BX28 to be actually developed expeditiously.

With regards

I agree with the focus on transport e.g. proximity to the trainlines, cycle paths etc. There is no mention of water supply/waste disposal, access/distance to GPs, schools etc. Access to these is essential to include

Please do not overdevelop our community. My young family and I recently moved here from London, we were previously living abroad in New York. This is one of the most beautiful communities in the world. Once it has been destroyed it will not come back. The small towns and villages of this AONB are the councils greatest assets please do not destroy them for short term ‘gain’. This deeply unpopular government is pushing for increased development in an attempt to make up for their woeful inadequacies. They will be gone in a few years please stand up for your community.

Support, as long as infrastructure upgrades correspond to the locations of major new allocations. Bexhill, Battle, and
Rye, along with their proposed developments, will all require significant infrastructure improvements.

I have concerns that the upgrade in infrastructure needed to fulfill the plan has been underestimated

Keep new homes to minimum but review infratructure needs regularly

Qu. 17 Bexhill Urban area.

I see you are mostly using a hard site, except Land West of pages Lane. I hope the infrestructure will cope! Why are you building ON Eversley Rd Car park. which is used by shops etc. and why is Cooden Beach station car park going to be built ON. and used by many train users, will this discourage people using trains and driving to their destination. Or parking the roads.

Qu. 23. West Bexhill
So many houses to be built. I hear that due to Heavy rainfall the Sewers are backfilling into the houses in this area. the use of greenfields, to build ON is sad. all these houses, and the traffic to come on to the A259. which is already very busy & congested at different times of the day. So can this road cope with more!

Building on Northeye. Is it safe for people to live & garden on when the aspestos is removed?

Qu. 24 North Bexhill
Lunsford Cross. This is traffic is to come out on to Ninfield Road which is a very busy road. If there is as accident in Barnhorn Road the traffic is diverted through country Lanes to Ninfield Road. So many houses to be built on greenfields. Lovely county side. Handy these roads will not cope with all this extra traffic. The interstucture, as explained at the beging is just not there ALSO give respect to many different

Species of WILD Life, Insects and trees and plants. As we share our wonderful Planet.

Dear BEXHILL will never be the Same. Why build on Sidley Car Park. used By shoppers & visitors, carpark off busy road. No Street Parking.

Qu.1 Rother Local PLAN as this covers a very large area. Take notice of the people who live in this area.

Qu.5 THE Infrestructure of all these into areas, will have to be looked before houses are built! eg. water which is already a great problem to surply especially when the reservoirs are low. So more houses a real problam!

THE Sewer's old and new. Can the treatment plants cope!
The roads, how will they stay safe & maintained as there are many potholes already. plus this area has many county Lanes, not suitable for the heavey building Lorries! with all these extra people. how are the hospitals, Conquest, Bexhill and EASTBOURNE going to cope?

There is already a great shortage of Doctors & Dentist more people will make things worse.

I do not wish to comment about the location of proposed building sites. But we are currently in a situation where Infrastructure and facilities are already struggling to cope. It seems quite senseless to build thousands more houses until you have more reservoirs, more sewage treatment, more doctors surgeries, more hospitals, more schools, more public transport, better road surfaces, reliable power supplies etc, etc.

To simply permit new development without dealing with the infrastructure and facilities FIRST is short sighted and irresponsible.

Qu.1 The promise of adopting to climate change and reducing Flood risk as part of any new infrastructure needs much further planning, consultations and hands on investigations. Large parts of Peasmarsh are already flooding or at risk of flooding. Usage of more brownfield will only increase flooding to the homes already here.
The sewerage systems are already under pressure and there are continuous drainage problems arising So the new planning policies will not be in line with effective sustainability or adapted to climate change as promised.

Qu.5 The current infrastructure in place is already causing issues such as drainage, flooding and access to properties becoming dangerous for road users. Adding to this will only resolve in a higher population and huge risks for severe flooding, sewerage systems unable to cope and dangerous access around the village. The impact on the village will be unfair to the people who already reside here.
Adding to the population will also add Strain onto the already locally Stretched services. We require more GP surgeries, dentists and educational provisions to make this
viable. Our bus services are also under threat of cut backs and they fail to serve purpose already.

Qu.6 Looking at developmental gaps for planning would create a link between small villages and larger towns. The clear spacial divide between areas within the South East of England is what supports our sustainability and personal growth as many of these areas are farmed. linking towns by utilising this space would also create a diverse area of large populations with no green Space. we would be welcoming a vision aligned with
city living and in turn allow for more crime, more pollution and a strained community who already has no police presence.

Qu.47 The access to Malthouse lane is unsafe due to a high number of vehicles on the Maltings . There is also no infrastructure in place to Support two way traffic. The new housing development has already reduced parking, removed a layby and caused visibility problems when driving. Developing this space also has a huge impact on safety and privacy for children using the park and play areas.

Question Number: 1
The amended strategic spatial options presented in Figure 1 raise several concerns regarding their justification, deliverability, and alignment with both local and national planning policy. While the diagram seeks to illustrate a revised distribution of growth across the district, it does not provide sufficient evidence that the proposed pattern of development is supported by infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints analysis, or a transparent assessment of reasonable alternatives. In particular, the amended options appear to place disproportionate pressure on rural settlements without demonstrating that these locations can sustainably accommodate additional growth given their limited road capacity, constrained public transport, drainage and wastewater limitations, and proximity to sensitive landscapes including the High Weald AONB. The absence of clear methodology explaining how the amended options were derived, how constraints were weighed, and how the Peasmarsh and other Neighbourhood Development Plans were taken into account further undermines the robustness of the spatial strategy. As presented, the amended options do not provide a sound or evidence-based foundation for determining the future pattern of development in Rother and require further refinement and justification.
Question Number: 5
The proposed development strategy for Peasmarsh is unsound because it is not supported by a credible or deliverable infrastructure plan. The strategy allocates significant housing growth in a settlement where the existing infrastructure is already operating at or beyond capacity, yet it provides no evidence that essential upgrades can be secured or delivered within the plan period. In particular, the constrained road network—most notably Main Street—cannot safely accommodate the additional traffic without substantial junction, pedestrian, and highway improvements, none of which are identified or costed. Likewise, there is no demonstrated capacity within local drainage systems or wastewater treatment infrastructure to support further development, contrary to the requirements for sustainable water management. The absence of confirmed utility capacity, safe pedestrian routes, and commitments to expand healthcare, education, and community facilities means the strategy fails to meet the tests of deliverability and infrastructure-led growth. For these reasons, the development strategy does not comply with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan or national planning policy and should not be taken forward in its current form.

Question Number: 6
The council's assessment of the additional development strategy options for Peasmarsh is fundamentally flawed because it fails to give proper weight to the settlement's significant infrastructure constraints and does not demonstrate that any of the proposed growth levels are realistically deliverable. The evaluation treats highways capacity, drainage limitations, wastewater treatment constraints, and pedestrian safety as secondary considerations, despite these being critical determinants of whether development can proceed sustainably. By assuming that future mitigation can be secured without identifying specific schemes, funding sources, or delivery timelines, the assessment does not meet the required standard of evidence. Furthermore, the analysis does not adequately reflect the policies of the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan, particularly those relating to infrastructure-led growth, landscape protection, and settlement character. As a result, the council's appraisal does not provide a sound or justified basis for selecting any preferred development option and should be reconsidered with a more rigorous, policy-compliant assessment of infrastructure capacity and constraints.

Question Number: 13
The proposed vision and development strategy for Rye and the Eastern Settlements Cluster, including the development figures presented in Figures 23 and 24, is unsound because it fails to reflect the significant environmental, infrastructure, and service-capacity constraints that define this part of the district. The strategy appears to allocate growth at a level that is neither justified nor deliverable, particularly in settlements such as Peasmarsh, where highways limitations, drainage and wastewater constraints, and limited access to essential services have not been adequately assessed or addressed. The development figures lack a transparent evidence base and do not demonstrate compliance with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan or with national policy requirements for infrastructure-led, sustainable development. By presenting growth levels that exceed the realistic capacity of the area without identifying the necessary mitigation, funding, or delivery mechanisms, the strategy does not provide a credible or policy-compliant framework for future development and should therefore be reconsidered.

Question Number: 47
The proposed site allocations for Peasmarsh set out in Policies PE1 to PE5 are unsound because they do not adequately reflect the settlement's significant infrastructure, environmental, and landscape constraints, nor do they demonstrate compliance with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan. The cumulative scale of development implied by these allocations exceeds what the village can sustainably accommodate given the limited road capacity, unresolved pedestrian safety issues, known surface-water and drainage problems, and the absence of confirmed wastewater and utilities capacity. The allocations also fail to provide a transparent or evidence-based justification for how these sites were selected over reasonable alternatives, and they do not identify the infrastructure required to support growth, how it will be funded, or when it will be delivered. Without clear mitigation measures, costed infrastructure commitments, or a robust assessment of cumulative impacts, Policies PE1 to PE5 do not provide a deliverable or policy-compliant framework for development in Peasmarsh and should therefore be reconsidered.

Question Number: 67
The appendices relating to Peasmarsh are inadequate and do not provide the level of evidence required to justify the scale or distribution of development proposed for the village. Key technical information—particularly on highways capacity, drainage and surface-water management, wastewater treatment, utilities provision, and cumulative environmental impacts—is either missing, incomplete, or presented in a generic form that does not reflect the specific constraints of Peasmarsh. The appendices also fail to demonstrate how the proposed allocations comply with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan or how alternative sites and growth levels were assessed and discounted. Without transparent methodology, robust site-specific assessments, or costed and deliverable infrastructure commitments, the appendices cannot be relied upon as a sound evidence base. As a result, the development strategy for Peasmarsh is not justified, not effective, and not deliverable, and the supporting appendices must be revisited and strengthened before any allocations can be taken forward.

Q5: Yes, drainage & connecting pipes in the village. Flooding risks, transport, doctor's & schools.

Q47: The amount of houses are too much for a small village with no infrastructure, what will people do for. Nothing for young people to do, too remote. It's not a town, as no cafes, stores & much more & bad transport, facilities, risk of flooding to other houses, will they be private & social, not good.

Question Number 1: Not seen
Question Number 2: This is a village - I do not want Peasmarsh to become a town
Question Number 5: Schools? Doctors? Clinics? etc.
Question Number 6: Yes we don't want any of it.
Question Number 13: No Comment
Question Number 47: Flats and work shops - big no no. Maltings has already lost old folks home to houses. Flats to close to houses in Maltings.
Question Number 67: Not seen.

Question Number 5:
Utilities outdated, re pumping station which was built before 19th Century, drains not maintained, overflowing with sewage/water; some flooding erupting in roads. Many powerouts/broadband outages. Nearest water collection Bexhill unable to cope with supply. New development in Maltings built left roads damaged; residents informed roads will be fixed. Lorries causing congestion daily/weekly. Raw sewage backlog via home drains. Congestion: parking in Maltings doubled, looking ugly and devaluing property. Council properties rundown, not maintained. Two properties put in for auction rather than done up and given to local people, and YOU WANT TO BUILD ADD houses when you can't look after the ones you have. Traffic cutting through village when I'm out with the horse and cart. Public transport cancelled. Fares doubled. GP appointments too long. Schools can't cater for added loads. The access route has caused many domestic issues re parked cars. This means you are entering on the wrong side of the road, creating an accident waiting to happen. Parking: huge issue, especially on football events. If you build at SES Bus Park this will add to existing issues.
Question Number 13:
Business units back onto ancient woodlands: deer, birds, owls, wild boar, and local people use this to exercise horses and dogs in a calm environment. People use car park for recreational purposes e.g. dog walking in woods, horse trailers loading horses. Disabled persons use it whilst exercising dogs. The area is meant to be for small business, but costs have doubled from 350–600, not including utilities. As a business person, I would love a unit but prices are too expensive. I do not believe the premises will be given to local people. I OBJECT to the planning on PE5 Maltings Bus Park. We are too congested on the estate to add further disruption. I also OBJECT to PE5 Tanyard Field. This land is outstanding natural beauty, High Weald National Landscape. Most of our surface water comes from that direction. It holds natural springs/wells in the houses and tries to prevent flooding, which blocks up the Maltings.

Qu. 42
NEED NEW schools, doctors, Dentists first Before any new houses. Major drainage works Road Surface Replacement. There are loads of things that Need fixing Before you add more houses to the Village By adding more houses you will only make the Rubbish, drainage and Roads worse.

Qu.1. Where are the Residents of the new houses going to send their kids to school as all local School are full where are the residents of the New house going to get medical and dental care as it takes weeks to get an appointment already.

Qu. 5. Main drainage needs updating to Support new
house as drains overflowing is common.

Qu.47 Peasmarsh does not have the inforstructure In Place to have that amount of houses.

UPGRADE the Inforstructure first.

Q1: We agree in principal regarding climate change and therefore disagree with any building that interfers with any natural heritage. Do not believe that building in small villages will have any advantage to the 'housing crisis' cost of infrastructure, damage caused will far exceed the benefit. Villages do not offer many working opportunities, travelling to large towns for employment and the increase in car use this will entail.

Objective 6: A small village would not create economic prosperity except for the planners and builders who would then disappear once building has been completed.

Objectives 7-11: Building houses in a small village is using greenfill land with no infrastructure in place will cost so much money and potentially affect housing and residence already living in the area. Where would all these extra people come from?

Q5: Very concerned that the infrastructure is not in place for further house building. The cost of this would outway the benefits. Health, social care, education is also a great concern with the increased population of a small village.

Q6: Concerned that plans and strategies may be in place but will these ever be implemented, as the cost and difficulty in getting infrastructure in place will never happen.

Q13: Very concerned that several sites in our small village have been targeted for development. These sites are mainly designated as green space with archaeological and heritage sites. These green areas should remain so not built on.

Q47 - PE1-PE4: There is no water, sewage, electricity available. Very small primary school heritage site, green space. Highway full of pot holes. Would get worse with heavy lorry trraffic. One bus route only. Main route to Rye traffic increase, quiet village. Limited work available in village people to have to larger towns. Access to extra houses point in road at top of hill, once site has a large slope. Why ruin a landscape to then put up further foliage to hide the house. High Weald National Landscape and archealogical notification area so build here!! Should not be built on only small pump house for villagers. SE Water cannot cope with the houses they serve at the moment. Water supply to currant housing could be affected.

Q47 - PE5: Small area for these flats, how high are you proposing to built upto will completely ruin the village as this is an old village not the centre of London.

Q67: To build in a green space does not help the environment. The government strategy on build build build will not help us to get to net zero. We already have social housing in the village.

Qu.1 The proposed plans do not appear to have been thoroughly thought through by proper site visits Local knowledge from people already living in the area
Just because an area has a certain amenity does not justify extra properties. The point system for the housing allocations is very unfair. This is an area of green belt once built on can never be rectified. About the issues connected with development in Peasmarsh with be left to the residents once the developer moves out.

Qu. 5. Infrastructure is a huge issue within Peasmarsh The road through the village of heavy goods vehicles coming through is quite busy and has a large number of heavy goods vehicles coming through. The area suffers from power failures, water issues from surface water and in some cases flooding. The proposed developments will increase these issues to an unacceptable level.

Qu. 13 One 4 the reasons Peasmarsh has been given a larger point system for allocation is due to having Jempsons supermarket and associated business like petrol station, cafe, pharmacy etc as they do not have this facility. This is so way. We are being penalised due to this amenity in the village People travel from villages to this facility so why we we penalised with extra housing became of this.

Qu.47. Sites PE1-PES all have similar issues and hopefully other respondents to this will update with how development on there sites not only affects Them
for building on. but also why this land is not suitable.
Personally, PE3 Tanyard gives me concern regarding proposed development. This site was rejected in the original Peasmarsh Development plan. due to bad issues & historical location from the church to the village Why all of a, sudden this location has been decide as a great location to build on.
Surface water from the area of the church and down the field into the garden of the properties on the boundary are very high. With extra concrete, roads, roofs this issue will be even greater. Where will the water go? Our grass is green through the year without being hosepipe watered. There is No change in the moisture of our garden and the soil never dries out. I attach photos showing the grass throughout the year. It never changes.

Without excellent drainage systems which would have to be maintained, This development would cause unacceptable harm to existing residents on Main Street.
Enclose pics of flooding this year. All the sites proposed have issues with the increase of properties, infrastructure and population. Many people who also moved
by London authorities do not want to be in a village away from family and support network and village life in general. So who exactly are these hours Many decisions made now by authority without any knowledge of the area and its issues. To build just to keep to a target is totally
wrong in my opinion and planning rules appear o have been removed, So that anything goes.

1
All villages were encouraged to form a Local Plan (the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan - PNDP), which was accepted by Rother District Council in 2024. This was intended to ensure that the local council would use it as a template for future consultations and planning decisions.
A small committee worked for months to develop this plan on behalf of us villagers.
The High Weald National Landscape (formerly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) is on my doorstep; my property backs directly onto it.
This is our heritage, farmed by local families for generations. The field in question has natural springs that erupt from the ground.
We should be preserving this area of natural beauty. I feel there has been no regard for our village or its surrounding scenery, and I strongly object to any development on Tanyard Field.
5
Regarding infrastructure needs:
Our utilities are outdated, particularly the pumping station, which dates back to around the 19th century. The drains, of similar age, are poorly maintained and frequently blocked, often overflowing with water and raw sewage into the road.
On several occasions, sewage has erupted through the drainage system into my garden, spreading across my patio when the drains could not cope. A couple of years ago on Mothering Sunday, the situation was so severe that I was unable to leave my property. While others were enjoying the day, I was dealing with blocked drains and sewage. Thankfully, on that occasion, it did not enter my home.
This system is already struggling and cannot cope with existing demand, let alone the addition of more houses. The high water table has been a persistent problem for many years.
We also experience frequent power cuts, broadband outages, and burst water pipes, which have required residents to collect water from emergency supply stations. These are ongoing issues that must be addressed before any further development is considered.
Congestion in the Maltings has led to cars being double-parked and mounted on verges, which has damaged the grassed areas and left the roads broken and in need of repair. It feels unsafe when I walk my dog around the block for exercise.
I have previously lost broadband with BT for four days because cabinets and connection boxes became flooded. I rely on broadband to watch television, and it is my main source of company and entertainment during dark nights.
Heavy and prolonged rainfall has nowhere to drain and the situation is only likely to worsen.
During periods of water shortages, I am registered as vulnerable and have had water delivered on several occasions.
Uneven footpaths also make it difficult to walk safely around the village during the day, let alone at night.
6
Access to the school via School Lane is unsafe. Parked cars on pavements, trailers, and abandoned vehicles filled with rubbish severely restrict access. This creates congestion and makes it inaccessible not only for me, but also for parents with young children.
Disabled access is effectively impossible, and it would be extremely difficult for emergency vehicles to pass through.
There is no safe route to school when cars are blocking the pavement and the road itself is too narrow.
In these circumstances, proposing further development that would exit onto an already overcrowded road is completely unreasonable.
This development should be refused. at PE3 TANYARD FIELD
13
The proposed vision and development appear to be entirely misguided.
The allocation of development behind my home would not only be an eyesore, but would also result in a loss of privacy.
The view of the High Weald National Landscape, along with the peace and quiet we currently enjoy, would be lost forever.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the planning proposal. on TANYARD field (PE3)
47
I have a major objection to the proposed planning allocations for PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Maltings Business Park.
PE5 - Maltings Business Park
This small business park was created to support local businesses. I was surprised to see it included as a potential redevelopment site in the proposed plans.
The car park is regularly used by the local community for football matches, fetes, jubilees, and other village events.
It is a valuable community asset that has served residents for many years. The loss of this space would have a significant impact on the wider community, and it should not be removed from local use.
PE3 - Tanyard Field
Tanyard Field has, for as long as I can remember, been farmed by the local farmer.
The land has had numerous applications to develop it over many years, all of which have been refused.
The land contains natural springs.
When the field was rolled in 1995/96, it caused significant flooding to my home at 1 Dundee Cottage, and nearby neighbouring buildings.
It was concluded that rolling the grass altered the drainage and caused water to run off with such force that it led to flooding.
We required assistance from the fire brigade at the time.
Following this, the landowner dug a ditch at the bottom of our properties to assist with drainage.
We were told this ditch would be maintained annually, but it has only been cleared once.
I have raised concerns about the lack of maintenance and have received no response.
A culvert was also installed at the front of my property to help manage water flow.
The grass has never been rolled again, but residents were assured that the drainage ditch above the properties would be regularly maintained by the owner to protect our homes from flooding.
This has not happened.
As a result, our gardens regularly hold standing water.
If a large development were permitted on this land, it would create a serious and unacceptable flood risk.
Securing home insurance is already difficult, and further development would only make this worse.
1 Dundee Cottage and nearby properties are all on a monthly unblocking scheme.
Contractors attend regularly to flush the system through.
This arrangement was put in place after repeated flooding incidents, including one on Mothering Sunday a few years ago when the system became blocked and I was unable to leave my property due to surface water and raw sewage outside my home.
Conway carries out this work on behalf of South East Water as a regular preventative service to protect my property and that of my neighbours.
Their teams attend at all hours, often late into the evening, when the system begins to fail.
The flashing lights from service vehicles and the disruption have become a constant feature of living here.
The fact that a routine monthly flushing programme is required clearly demonstrates that the drainage system is not coping.
Many of the properties backing onto Tanyard Field have wells and culverts to help manage groundwater, yet flooding remains an ongoing issue.
Introducing large-scale development in this location would significantly increase that risk.
I also refer you to Rother District Council's own document dated 22 February 1990, reference RR/90/0021/P.
This field is located within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
Any development on this site would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape and would have a catastrophic impact on the rural nature of the area.
Local residents use this countryside to walk their dogs and enjoy the peace and quiet of the surrounding landscape.
Children use the field for sledging in winter.
The amenity and privacy of those whose homes back onto Tanyard Field would be permanently lost.
Accepting this site would set a precedent and encourage further unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
A few years ago, homes were built adjoining the main road as a so-called compromise.
Now yet another application has been proposed.
This pattern raises serious concern.
The suggestion that the site would accommodate only 15 dwellings is unrealistic.
Based on past experience, there is a genuine fear that, once approved, pressure would follow for increased numbers.
In recent years, proposals associated with this land have included developments of up to 100 houses.
The field slopes steeply northwards and naturally drains in that direction, making it unsuitable for housing and highly likely to worsen drainage problems.
It contains numerous natural springs, which remain active to this day.
Water can be seen rising from the centre of the field.
The heavy clay soil is largely impermeable, meaning heavy rainfall runs off rapidly, causing flooding and damage to properties along Main Street.
This runoff places additional strain on the combined drainage systems serving the village.
In your own correspondence dated 22 February 1990 (reference RR/90/0021/P), consultation with Southern Water concluded that the site could not be adequately drained.
Surface water runoff is already a significant issue throughout the village.
Vehicle access to the site is inadequate and unsafe.
This long-established green field also supports wildlife, including bats, hedgehogs, tawny owls, woodpeckers, badgers, and other species.
As an elderly resident with a free bus pass, I am unable to travel before 9.00 am.
This limits my ability to attend appointments or access services.
Traffic calming measures are needed through the village, including zebra crossings for elderly residents and young children who already live here.
Public transport provision is poor, with buses frequently cancelled.
Footpaths require resurfacing, as they are uneven and rocky.
Tree roots have lifted sections of pavement, creating trip hazards, and overhanging trees need to be trimmed back.
Hedges encroaching onto footpaths should be regularly cut and maintained.
Parked cars blocking pavements, particularly along School Lane, should be consistently enforced by local parking authorities, as the pavements are often unusable.
Benches should be reinstated around the village, as many elderly residents rely on them for rest.
I also lost my television service for four days when broadband cabinets became flooded.
As an elderly person living alone, broadband and television are my primary source of company and connection to the outside world.

1
All villages were encouraged to form a LOCAL PLAN (the Peasmarsh
Neighbourhood Development Plan) PNCP accepted by Rother Council in
2024.
In order that the local council would use this as a template going forward
in consultations.
Villagers worked together with a small committee to develop the local
plan; it took months to do this.
You do not mention the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, referred to
as HIGH WEALD NATIONAL LANDSCAPE, only (Landscape). This is our
heritage that has been farmed by local farmers for years.
This field has geysers erupting from it.
And we should be preserving this area.
I feel you have no regard for our village compared to other villages. We
feel you are bombarding us with huge planning expectations and large
building numbers for new homes on sites that, over the years, have been
turned down as unsuitable for planning. Also, we feel you are sidelining
our plan, making us feel what a waste of time doing a local plan was if it
is ignored and was merely an exercise to make us think you were
consulting us.

5
Regarding infrastructure needs
Our utilities are outdated, especially with regard to our pumping station
that was built around the 19th century.
Drains of similar age are not maintained, often blocked, overflowing with
water and sewage, not only flooding but erupting into the road as raw
sewage.
This system cannot cope currently, let alone if more houses are added to
the system. The high water table problem has been known for many
years.
Many power cuts, broadband outages and water pipes bursting, resulting
in having to collect water from water stations, is an ongoing problem.
When the New Development in the Maltings was built, it left roads around
the development damaged, and residents were promised this would be
re-tarmacked by the developer, but it was not. Years later it is still not
repaired. Highways own the road and will not fix the potholes until they
get dangerously too deep.
Parking on the new development was to be in their parking space
(An allocated parking space) behind houses, but most park on the road at
the front of their homes, causing congestion in an already
parking-problem estate.
As they are only allocated one space, most families have two or more
vehicles.
Due to housing being unaffordable, teenagers have no choice but to
either live at home longer or seek property elsewhere out of the area
where they work.
The sheltered housing was out of sorts, a large eyesore which looked into
the Maltings houses, losing their privacy, and is very much an eyesore
and looks completely out of character in the surrounding area and out of
place. Again, the lay-by outside, designed for ambulance drop-off, etc., is
abused by people abandoning their cars there.
The New Development experienced raw sewage back-blocked up into
some of the houses, along with flooding and also outside their home
sewage and surface water issues at the new property,
Which had to be addressed shortly after.
The congestion in the Maltings has double cars parked on verges, leaving
verges looking ugly and the surrounding properties looking in huge
decline.
The roads are broken, needing repair. The council property is looking run
down and not maintained. Surely these things need sorting before any
redevelopment plans for future developments.
The access route from the main road onto the Maltings has caused
arguments because of parking on a junction or nearby, which means you
are entering on the wrong side of parked cars into the estate, an accident
waiting to happen.
Parking is a huge problem on normal days, but with football matches this
again adds to the pressure and is a nightmare getting on and off the
estate.
Broadband has improved as Gigaclear has helped, but most villagers lost
broadband with BT for four days due to all their boxes filling with water,
etc.
Climate has had a bad effect. Surface run-off from heavy, constant rain
has nowhere to go and is only going to get worse.

6
The local school has declined in numbers due to lack of local families
(birth numbers) within the village. Recently, when doing a Jubilee, it was
found most children travelled in from Rye and other villages.
Also, the lack of specialised poor SEND has taken children to
neighbouring schools where they could support their individual learning
needs.
Again, surely better funding and infrastructure could be concentrated on
the local primary school.
All schools should be accountable where their SEND funding is being
implemented and used in their school, with accountability and
transparency.
Reassuring it is being used for the correct implementation of the child's
needs.
Not flooring, cooling systems, etc., but actual help for children with
special needs.
The access to school via School Lane is unsafe. Parked cars on
pavements, trailers and dumped vehicles full of rubbish limit parking and
crowd access and are not easily accessible by emergency vehicles.
Let alone a safe route to school, with cars blocking the pavement as the
road is too narrow, and a proposed development is ridiculous, leading out
onto what is an overcrowded road, is barbaric and this development
should be refused at PE3 TANYARD FIELD

13
The proposed vision and development seem completely wrong.
The allocation of proposed homes is not in proportion to the village
needs.
Our village feels like we are being forced to swallow new homes more
than neighbouring villages; this is not fair.
The last council homes built recently in the Maltings ended up with few
locals being homed, and the council housing those from Bexhill,
Tonbridge, etc. There is no reassurance that this would not happen again.

47
I have a major objection to the planning on PE3 TANYARD FIELD
And PE5 MALTINGS BUSINESS PARK
1) Maltings Business Park
This small business park was created for small start-up local community
businesses, but recently the tenants have told us they were priced out,
rents doubled and, as a result, they had to move to Rye Harbour for more
affordable units.
They were not informed of any proposal of redevelopment ideas and, like
us, were surprised to see you include this as a consideration in
redevelopment in the proposed site plans.
It is a valuable area of local employment and this was its original purpose
for small start-up business units.
The car park is used by the local community for football matches, fetes,
jubilees, etc., and is a valuable asset for the whole wider community that
we do not want to lose. This valuable asset has been used for years by
the villagers and helps to keep the congestion problem down for visitors in
the Maltings, avoiding over-congestion in parked cars and lack of parking
spaces.
The grit bin is stored on the grass verge here and funded by the Parish
Council, which keeps the junction usable in snow conditions.
The car park helps reduce parking problems and over-parking in the
Maltings and this should have been donated to the recreation ground for
the local community to use, but when we asked we were told that as it
was an asset we would not be allowed recently.
Disabled people park here and watch their families play.
2) PE3 TANYARD FIELD
This land has historically been farmed by a local farmer.
The owner has tried to develop this land on
countless applications purely to make money, with no worry of the
consequence.
I am sure they are aware of the natural springs in the land.
When the land was rolled in 1995/96, it caused flooding to cottages and the Horse and Cart public house.
As a result the gardens are full of water if Large Development were
allowed and built here this would cause huge flooding risk getting
insurance is a problem too and the historical springs would be lost
forever
The cottages and the Horse and Cart are on a monthly unblocking
scheme, where they come out and flush the system through, as on
Mothering Sunday a few years ago the system blocked up and was
flooded with surface water and raw sewage outside their homes. Conway
do this on behalf of South East Water. They are aware the system is not
coping. All houses that back onto Tanyard Field, some have wells to help
with this and culverts, but water flooding is a problem.
Over 40 years, the landowner has revamped their planning application for
Tanyard Field and has been rejected on appeals.
I hope you can still refer to your own document issued by Rother DC on
22 February 1990 under reference RR/90/0021/P.
This field is located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
/ HIGH WEALD NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
Any development here would be detrimental to the character and
appearance of the landscape and would have a catastrophic impact on
the rural character of the area.
Locals use this countryside to walk their dogs and embrace the rural
peace and quiet of the beautiful surroundings; kids sledge here in winter.
The amenity and privacy would be lost for those backing onto Tanyard
Field.
Any acceptance of this site would encourage other similar unsuitable
future applications in the vicinity. As of a few years ago, the homes built
adjoining the main road were built as a compromise and now yet another
application has been requested.
The suggestion the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naive
understanding of the issue. We know if this went ahead the landowner
would push for more and more, as in recent years his persistence, the
largest involved 100 houses.
The county fields steeply drain towards the north, making it completely
unsuitable for housing and will cause a drainage problem.
The field is filled with many natural springs which remain there to this day.
Water spouts rising from the middle of the field; the heavy clay soil makes
the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off,
causing considerable problems and damage to properties lining Main
Street.
This in return overloads combined drainage running down through Main
Street; your own letter in 1990 references that, in consultation with
Southern Water, the site is not satisfied that the site can be adequately
drained.
Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village.
The vehicle access is inadequate and unsafe.
This ancient green field supports many species and wildlife.

PE1
My concern that a building estate can be proposed turning out onto a
main road on a brow of the hill is unsafe.
Jempson's already has a flooding issue with water and sewage at the
entrance to their car park.
Again, their proposal could not be a few homes but a major development
which would impact the traffic flow in this area and impact drainage
problems.
PE2
Traffic needs calming through the village with zebra crossings for young
and elderly who currently live here already.
Public transport is lacking; often buses are cancelled. There used to be a
direct bus to Hastings; now you have to change and it does not always
connect.
Fares have doubled, making it unaffordable to young families. Trains are
often cancelled and are unreliable for those who are housed in rural
areas with no good transport connection for work or college needs.
More money should be directed into sixth-form provisions at local
colleges.
Doctor surgeries are at maximum; getting an appointment is not easy.
Waiting for hospital appointments can be long too, and there are no
dentist appointments unless private, and they are constantly pushing
NHS clients back to the waiting list.
These services need improving to be able to cope with the influx of new
families into rural life.

Q1.
Part 1. Chapter 2
You say that your Objective is to look after the local character of a place, which includes preserving Natural Space. (Point I) This will not be sustainable if present plans go ahead.
The areas suggested are Green Field Sites (i.e. the High Weald Natural Landscape) and not Brown Field Sites.
Q1
Part 1 Chapter 2
There seems to be no regard to the local village life + surrounding scenery, used by dog walkers, runners; shooting pheasants etc; the footpath to the Church; the footpath from School Lane to Jempson’s; recreation ground etc.
The surrounding fields have been used by Tenant Farmers for years, and supply local produce and are helping maintain the natural habitat for many species of flora + fauna important for biodiversity & ecosystems.
Peasmarsh fields have natural springs that erupt from the ground and cause flooded fields and gardens, frequently.
At the back of Farleys Way there is a stream or pond that has a culvert and mustn't be blocked. The flooding caused is neither “neutral nor minor positive.”
Q5
Part 2 Chapter 4 – Infrastructure Needs
A priority should be to re-check infrastructure needs!
The risk of flooding, as stated above, needs re‑assessing.
Our utilities are outdated. The pumping station is inadequate & drains are frequently blocked.
There are 2 mature oak trees in Farley’s Way which in Autumn cause the drains to overflow because of leaves. Water often flows down the road and floods across it + the gardens, as there aren't enough drains.
We often get power cuts & frequent outages, causing problems with wifi, phone lines, water supply, gas + electricity supplies! As a vulnerable person I have to depend on water being delivered. There is no 999 availability + quite a few stopcocks (PE1 + PE2 in the road have failed.)
The position up the top of the hill + the number of houses suggested will put extra pressure on the Dickensian infrastructure that can't cope already!
Parking is often a problem with cars parking on pavements, restricting emergency services.
If PE5 development goes ahead, this will increase the problem.
Q6
Part 3 ch 5 – Preparing the Development Strategy
Access to School Lane is unsafe. It is too narrow and causes congestion. Development onto the road will be too dangerous – a child has already been hit recently. The Neighbourhood Original Plan Boundary was acceptable, however, the updated one is NOT.
Q13 (+47)
Proposed Vision + Development Strategy
There is a disproportionate requirement for certain areas, considering size + facilities.
Rye town – 325 houses (many shops etc)
Beckley (no shops one pub) – 53 houses
Peasmarsh (ONE shop and petrol, closed on Sundays) – 143 houses!
Q47
Peasmarsh Proposed Site Allocations
Part 3 ch 5
PE5 – Loss of Community Space + Facilities.
The Maltings Business Park supports local people. The community recreation ground field, which is used for sport + various events, will be lost and the loss of the community car park will add to congestion.
PE1 – PE2. Suggested road functions will be extremely dangerous! The one at the top of the hill, near The Cockerel, especially so. Cars travel too fast + often the sunlight blocks visibility on its approach, going up the hill.
Peasmarsh village itself has a 2‑hourly bus service that is often delayed or cancelled.
Jempson’s entry from roundabout is often flooded + impassable! The facilities there sound good but it is ONE SHOP, reliant on one man of retirement age, not 5 different shops!
Doctors: The nearest doctor is in Rye.
School: The primary + nursery school is small + old.
Q69
Part 3 ch 7 – Other Comments
I know the Government is committed to building more houses but why are they not using Brown Field Sites + repurposing empty houses/flats owned by companies & falling into disrepair?
We are one of the worst countries for biodiversity – our natural environment and wildlife is declining. We should be maintaining hedge rows + natural habitat. Severe weather will get worse. We need to encourage LOCAL farming & not rely on foreign imports.
Should you require further space to respond to make comments please continue on a separate page or sheet of paper as necessary. The owner of these fields is only interested in financial gain.
The builders promise things that they then don’t do i.e., after getting planning permission they then changed the amount of social housing in preference to bigger houses!
We live in windy roads + lanes + depend on cars.
Please rethink your policies.

This is a most difficult form to fill in!
I can only respond to proposals regarding Peasmarsh.
School will become very busy with the additional houses. Also the school is limited and will it be able to accept any more pupils? Should another school be built?
The drainage on the land is also a problem and also the sewage.
With an enlarged community we will need a surgery. Possibly a care home for the older residents.
Additional traffic will spoil our quiet country lanes.

Qu.5 Health & social care NHS - surgeries in Rye are no longer accepting new NHS dental patients. The wait for an appointment is 6 months + Planning was refused open
permission was sought to build care home next o Rye Medical centre on the grounds that the practice could not take on any more patients.

Qu.47. Dark Skies Policy
Lighting should be designed to minimise light spill in communal areas. How will control be exercised within the boundaries of each property X 144 ?

Qu.69 Drainage is a major issue where Tanhouse Lane meets the Jempson's roundabout. It is understood that the
pumping Station at Iden is already at full capacity.

Qu.47 PE 5 Malthouse Business Park used by small local firms. Employing Local people Removal of these premises would be detrimental to the Establishment of small businesses within the village which give employment to local people. The car parking is utilised by users of the playing field, the loss of which would create further parking issues in nearby streets.
Qu.5 The sewage system cannot cope with the current level of housing at Peasmarsh. Any further development will only exacerbate the problems. There Should be no further developments in Peasmarsh until the sewage infrastructure is vastly improved.
Poor Road Surface, when raining heavy flooding of Roads due to blocked drains, not only on main roads but surrounding lanes as well. some have been blocked for years. This leads to many potholes being formed throughout winter.
Qu.47 PE 3 Tanyard Field
This site has already been recognised as a totally unsuitable Site for development, This decision was accepted by RDC in 2024. The whole site is FULL of natural Springs which EVEN now causes Problems with Surface water running off to the properties bordering the site.
PE 4 Orchard way.
Flooding occurs when there is heavy rain. A drainage ditch drains into the small pond on site which then flows into a small drainage pipe. In times of heavy rain this cannot cope with draining the Water away and flooding
occurs. There is only a narrow limited access to site via a privately owned road. There is no main drainage available on this site.

Question 1

There are so many justifications as to why the building of 143 houses should not be developed in Peasmarsh – but mainly –
To build on cherished Green Belt and on “marsh land”. The reason why Peasmarsh is called Peasmarsh.
The area is well known for excess surface water.

Question 5

What are the plans for increased services to Peasmarsh?
Public transport is already limited and recently the 313 bus route was publicised by Rother Council as ceasing to run on Sundays!
Health care, schools and utilities — are these services to expand?
South East Water has claimed it cannot manage increased demand especially during hot summer months.
Are the developers prepared & promised to support the added population of Peasmarsh?
Flooding is a huge worry — how are residents supposed to insure properties after water damage?
How many times will an insurance company insure a household?
Will the Council promise support?!
Approximately 3 years ago, development of Peasmarsh was argued against any further building.
The arguments were very detailed — why have the previous reasonings been dismissed?
Perhaps the original case against development and all the extensive paperwork should be re‑examined.
Save the Council’s time and money — why not not build in Peasmarsh?
Question 13

The local area of beauty (Rye) have all the same issues with new developments — surface water especially + fragile infrastructure.
Improved utilities should be established first!
Surface water is a huge problem in Peasmarsh — I am a regular walker & witness water laying on the fields.
Tanyard Field has natural springs.
It provides our garden with natural hydration especially during hot summer months.
We never have to water our patch of land — it stays green even through a drought!
New housing would increase threats of flooding.
I have enclosed photos of our garden as evidence of our concerns of the developments planned here in Peasmarsh.
Photos included - Label: Storm Chandra — 27th January 2026

Question 47

I have been a local resident for many years. I and my family very much oppose the plans to build 143 new properties in this village.
There is limited space, limited doctors / dentist appointments now, let alone if these plans for Peasmarsh and surrounding villages go ahead.
The village would lose its identity.
There have been problems with water / drainage issues coming from the fields. I believe the site chosen has a natural spring, so will never be suitable.
The families / children that have grown up here have no opportunity to remain. Previous new builds have given priority to people from outside the village (social housing) while our families and children cannot afford to remain.
This has long been a cherished area with outstanding surroundings. that should be protected, with ancient springs, bat colonies and the wildlife.
This is a peaceful, friendly village that would lose its identity and soul.
My family and I feel very strongly about this issue, as it seems does every Peasmarsh resident. Question 52

My family and I feel very strongly that this whole area, TN31, is a beautiful part of the country that should not have hundreds of new properties built.
(Original text contained wording about new homes being built for a specific group. Rewritten safely:)
We are concerned that large-scale new housing may not primarily serve existing local residents.
Rye Harbour is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which has species of birds and wildlife—birds travelling from far away. This also should NOT be disrupted.
We as a family feel very strongly that this country is quickly losing its identity and we want to have a say in what happens.