Q1: The Strategic S.O. should be adhered to in formulating the plan, plan in particular point 11 delivery of sustainable development. Local context & character, in Peasmarsh, there are instances where this principle is clearly breached). The proposals will change the character of the village. The objectives, no mention of area of outstanding natural beauty. National landscape should be added. See chapter 6.2 for details.

Q5: Infrastructure needs. Utility & energy fundamental pre requisites for any development after an inspection in 2024, highlighted the deficiencies of these services. The sewage system is inadequate. The combination of drain arrangement, storm water & sewage, wet conditions, ensures flooding & eruption of sewage onto the roads the sewage pumping station is at its limit of capacity. Further deterioration will make life insanitary currently there are wells that never run dry. Efforts have been made to reduce flooding but have failed. The high water table, have been known for a long time, but no remedies have been proposed power & water supply are clearly inadequate, at this current time without a development. Sometimes water & power failures may last for days. This must be solved now before any possible development. The village school is oversubscribed.

Q6: Development option SDO13 – A21 corridor growth should be pursued. SDO14 should proceed. Large scale developments are technically totally unsuitable.

Q13: The development strategy, it has the hall mark of a paper exercise. It ignores real life & the situation on the ground. The development is out of proportion to the size of the village & would increase the population by 15-20% thus changing the character of the village. Why is the proposed development in excess of any other village including larger ones. Is this to make Peasmarsh a dormitory of Rye? Peasmarsh already has more social & low cost housing housing than any/than many E. Sussex villages. Large scale development is not needed.

Q47: I have objects to the allocation sites in Peasmarsh - PE3 Tanyard Field & PE5 Malthouse Business Park.
PE3. This is not a new site. The landowner has tried to develop this site for 40 years & failed. The site is totally unsuitable for development. The field is in an area of natural beauty. The development would be detrimental to the character & appearance of the landscape. The visual amenity of the village would be damaged. There would be a loss of amenity, privacy & quiet enjoyment. Acceptance of this would encourage other unsuitable applications in the village. The landowners says he wants only 15 dwellings. Then in the future he would apply for further dwellings. A development would impact unfavourably on listed properties. The field has had a historic right of way across it for nearly a 1000 years. The field is not suitable for housing & generate drainage issues. The field has drainage problems, there are 5 natural springs, as noted on maps. There are photos of water spouting from the middle of the field. The soil is heavy clay & water, heavy rain runs off. Causing problems & dam age to the properties lining main street. Development would make this worse. The local authority & southern water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained. Surface water run off is a major problem in the village. Clue is in the name Peasmarsh. Many years ago, the landowner said he would plant trees, which split the field into 2. He said this would solve the problem of flooding, to the properties that back onto the field. The planting of the trees, failed to solve the flooding issue.
My property backs onto Tanyard Field. I do not know when but the landowner said he would have a trench/ditch dug to these properties, and he would in future have the ditched cleared of debris, again he has fail to do this. I have cleared the ditch twice in 4 years.
My rear lawn is more like if sponge, when we have heavy rain.
My water meter is in the real lawn. When the meter reading is required, at time the water has to cleared from above the meter, and I have also had to remove wet clay from above the meter, so I could read the meter, because the meter reader did not want to get their hands dirty. Building on this site would make the situation worse.

PART 2 CHAPTER 4
WATER MAINS - CONSTANTLY SEE WATER POURING OUT IN AREAS ROADS IN A DISGRACEFUL CONDITION WITH POTHOLES, REGULAR POWER CUTS, TRANSPORT- POOR BUS SERVICE + BELIEVE COUNCIL ARE CUTTING. SUNDAY SERVICE SO ADEQUATE PARKING FOR MULTI VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS REQUIRED.

STRUGGLES TO GET DOCTORS APPTS.

NHS DENTISTS ?? WHERE

PART 3 CHAPTER 7, QU.47 PE1- PE5
PARKING - INCREASE ON MAIN ROAD AREAS ARE PRONE TO FLOODING IF NOT ENOUGH ON SITE CAUSING POTENTIAL RISKS IF JOINING ON BROW OF HILL.

LIGHTING - CURRENTLY NO LIGHT POLLUTION ENSURING NOCTURNAL HABITAT ARE NOT DISTURBED, POOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT - NOT MUCH FOR YOUNGSTERS EXCEPT RECREATION GROUND WHICH ALSO HAVE EVENTS - PARKING FOR THIS?

SEWAGE - OLD SYSTEM UNLIKELY TO COPE WITH AMOUNT of HOUSES PROPOSED REDUCTION of SPACE FOR WILDLIFE+ DISTURBANCE.

Qu.69
GENERALLY STOP SECOND HOMES DEVELOPE THE DERECT BUILDINGS THOUSES FOCUS ON THE LACK OF MEDICAL FACILITIES FOR NHS TREATMENT.

The development strategy is completely undermined by any attempt to address the infrastructure needed to support the plan.
As a tick box plan to meet government and local council targets it has merits, of course it does.
However, the failure to address obvious needs for improved infrastructure specifically—flooding, sewage, more doctors, dentists, schools, transport etc. etc.—makes the plan unfeasible.
Looking at other developments in neighbouring villages and towns it is clear the lack of provision for the necessary infrastructure to support the building plans is the cause of inadequate [unclear word] and [unclear word]. It is visible that developers are not being asked to provide the extra services needed, and they will be needed, so presume the answer will be for local council to provide at expense of taxpayer?
Unfortunately then, the whole plan only proposes to answer half the need for extra housing which is so badly needed.
Without commitment on improving infrastructure I feel the plan is inadequate.
Point 47.
The whole allocation of sites within Peasmarsh is unrealistic without increased services as above.
Is anyone listening…?

1.
I am not sure of the relevance ROTHER Rather’s Local Plan since it will cease to exist in the next few years so question the validity of the proposals contained therein.
2.
I am concerned that the numbers do not reflect local needs and the proposed sites do not appear to meet the needs of local people on limited incomes and I do not agree with these figures as they do not appear to be evidence based.
5.
There is no evidence of any infrastructure being proposed or included in the planning – schools, transport, Dr’s surgeries, traffic flow – just houses in a village that is already in need of transport, Dr surgeries & improved management of traffic flows.
9.
This is a “vision” not a place, and for this reason I would not support as there is no reality check.
13.
For reasons & accuracy of wording point out with reference to 6.76 that there are not pavements on both sides of Main Street running the full length – has anyone actually tried to walk up Main…?
13.
Noted it is a vision and no indications of planning to make this reality.
47.
The site allocations in Peasmarsh do not take into account the long‑standing concerns which have already been well‑documented and evidenced regarding drainage – properties are still not connected to the main sewers and flooding is commonplace and has still not been resolved – the power supply is not reliable and drops in pressure / power cuts are frequent.
The infrastructure cannot support the crushing population. SE Water has evidence of leaks / frequent (issues) so I don’t understand why they are supporting.
The other major concern is the effect on traffic from the increased traffic on to Main Street. The emphasis on walking, cycling and the reduction of the bus service from April means that these policies are now becoming exclusive rather than inclusive – people with disabilities, the elderly & other residents currently are beginning to feel shut in and this has the ongoing effect on their mental wellbeing.
The pedestrian exit on to Main Street is currently in private ownership?!

Question 1 - This strategy does not reflect the wants or need the village. Anti social behavior will increase, no local priority.
Question 5 - Utilities on the village are outdated
The pumping station is constantly blocked
Vehicles are always seen. Back gardens flooded with water.
Question 6 - Land should be personal due to a historic [unclear text] on the land. Boundaries are not marked.
Used by local farmers for years. Utility and school stressed. Unsuitable for all the traffic now.
Wireless/utility infrastructure and School Lane access are already stretched.
The area is under pressure as it is now.
Question 13 - Transport network is inaquete. Schools, doctors, dentists, roads are not enough.
Question 47 - Pot holes dangerous. Accidents have already happened with the houses. Impossible access.
Question 67 - Strongly object. Would impact us as a family who have lived here for many years. It's a natural beauty, with lots of huldeple, owls, wood peckers
foxes, cows, sheep graze here and hay for food

Question 1
The local strategy does not reflect the needs of the village
It has had various planning applications over the years, which have all been turned down as unsuitable
There has been no expansion or modernisation of water/sewage drainage
Question 5
Access to building plots are unsuitable
Heavy recreational area and the party ground plus junction would be a massive safety concern
Anti social behaviour is a big problem now without taking away the small area there is now, as well as it being a valuable community area
Question 6
The field has a natural [unclear text] which should be preserved
Whole local pubs/college flooded due to the field being so wet
School Lane access unsuitable
Ditches were never mounted
Question 13
Transport network is not functional
Schools, doctors and dentist services are over‑stretched
Roads are not marked
Question 47
Water freezing on road causing ice and accidents
Very dangerous at the brow of a hill
Too many houses for the local services
Buses to be cut, not adequate for jobs
Doctors, dentist overcrowded
Traffic calming already needed in areas
Question 67
My family have lived locally for over many yrs
I strongly object to this planning
It would kill off all the meadow
And field is used for animal feed
What is needed to support the local farming community

Part 2
Chapter 4
Travel to secondary school already full & busses missed
Dentist and doctors appointments are hard to get and will be harder to get.
Water issues- blockages, no water, sewage
Will be an eye sore in the Maltings.
47
PEI- PES
Congestion - more traffic in our road.
Excess speed near child's park
Loose parking space
Natural woodland & wildlife will be affected.
School lane - accessibility / kids safety
Child got hit by car outside School already.
Visibility is Limited.
Too close to the park / light blocking
66
We will need Zebra crossings - extra kids.
Cars parked on junctions is already an issue.

Question 1
The Strategic Spatial Objectives should be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan. In particular, Point 11 states Deliver sustainable development having regard to local context and character. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached. The proposals for Peasmarsh will change the character of the village and the planning team are now clearly regarding the context of Peasmarsh as a suburb of Rye rather than the rural village it is.
The Objectives also do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, now called the High Weald National Landscape. As such they are going against the NPPF, which they are not allowed to do. The Objective of preserving the AONB/National Landscape should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read. Question 5
Regarding Infrastructure needs, my initial comments relate solely to Utility and Energy with specific reference to the Peasmarsh area, which are the fundamental pre‑requisites for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP), accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum, highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.
The sewer system is grossly inadequate. The combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will increase run‑off and cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.
Old houses by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drainage arrangements have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding, but have never succeeded.
Any post holes fill immediately with water. A photograph shows a hole dug to remove a fruit frame post from my garden which backs onto Tanyard field. This high water‑table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.
Both power and water supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure. Internet service also regularly fails.
It is irresponsible to consider any further development without addressing these issues first.
The village school is oversubscribed and cannot handle additional children the developments would generate. Question 6
The Development Option SDO13 A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.
SDO14 filling strategic gaps should proceed as well, and the reasons for abandoning it do not align with achieving development targets.
The effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas such as ours which are unsuitable for large‑scale developments and are technically totally unsuitable. Question 13
The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise, conducted from a desk and ignoring real life.
Allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is disproportionate to the size of the village and would increase the population by 15–20 percent, changing its character.
The number of new homes exceeds that of larger villages, despite clear geographical limitations.
Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20 percent of additional homes is unbalanced and appears to push Peasmarsh into becoming a dormitory suburb of Rye.
The commercial centres in the village are all on one site and part of one enterprise, exposed to commercial pressures.
Recent democratic consultations show the village wants small‑scale or infill development, not large‑scale proposals.
Peasmarsh already has more social and low‑cost housing than many local villages.
Concerns are raised about placing people from outside the area, as occurred in The Maltings development. Question 47
Major objections to PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.
PE3 Tanyard Field
The site is inaccurately described as new, despite over 40 years of attempts by the landowner to obtain planning permission, including appeals.
The site was investigated and rejected during preparation of the PNDP, endorsed by referendum and accepted by Rother DC.
Reasons for unsuitability include:

Located in AONB/High Weald National Landscape; development would damage character.
Visual amenity impact on many village homes.
Loss of amenity, privacy, quiet enjoyment.
Encourages further unsuitable applications.
The suggestion of 15 dwellings is unrealistic and would lead to larger future proposals, historically up to 100 homes.
Impact on listed buildings.
A historic right of way would be damaged.
Steep slope downhill increases drainage problems.
Field full of springs and heavy clay soil causing impermeable surfaces and severe run‑off.
Overloads main combined drain.
Surface water run‑off is a major longstanding issue in the village.
Unsafe access points onto School Lane and Main Street.
Traffic increases incompatible with environmental policy.
Infrastructure already inadequate.
Site supports multiple species, including protected wildlife such as bats, lizards, frogs, toads, hedgehogs, tawny owls, woodpeckers, and other protected species.

PE5 - Malthouse Business Park
This small industrial and commercial area is vital to local employment.
Its loss would deter small businesses and remove opportunities for local residents to work in the village.

The objectives do not include the area of outstanding beauty
People might assume the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a landscape sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying natural beauty, but changing the name does not make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan, accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after inspection and local referendum, highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.
Question 5
The sewer system is inadequate, combining storm water with sewage, together with wet conditions causes flooding and eruption into the road of sewage particularly during wet times
Our houses near the main road have wells that never dry out with complicated drain arrangements installed over the years to reduce flooding
Holes being dug fill immediately with water, no remedies have ever been undertaken
Power and water supply are inadequate for existing houses
I feel it would be foolish to consider further development within the village
The village school is oversubscribed with no facility to manage large numbers of additional children.
Question 6
Two local doctors surgeries (Rye, Northiam) are taking on no further patients, so where will medical treatment be obtained
The development option SDO13 A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should be pursued
SDO14 filling strategic gaps should proceed as well, though reasons given for abandoning it do not align with achievement of development targets the plan defines
Many of these reasons are well meant, but the effect is to force development targets into areas which are technically unsuitable

Question 13
The allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is out of proportion to the existing size of the village
Proposals would increase the population by 15–20 percent, completely changing the character of the village
Why should our village in the AONB / High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole
The number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village
Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20 percent of additional homes is clearly unbalanced
The wishes of the village clearly expressed developments should be small scale

Question 47
Peasmarsh has an undulating park‑like appearance and is visible from many locations round the village
Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area
The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the north making it totally unsuitable
The existing neighbour drives are adjacent to this access; we witness numerous near misses with people trying to get onto the main road
I feel the infrastructure around the site is inadequate for further housing
Also the drains are unable to cope now, let alone with extra housing

Question 1
The Strategic Spatial Objectives should be adhered to, having regard to local context and character. The proposals for Peasmarsh will materially change the character of the village.

Question 5
The sewer system is inadequate as there are regular occurrences of flooding and raw sewage erupting into the road. Southern Water have stated that the Sewage Pumping Station is at its capacity. Further housing will only exacerbate this. There are also regular power cuts.

Question 6
The Development Option SDO13 should be pursued.

Question 13
The proposed vision and development strategy seems wrong. The allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is out of proportion to the existing village and its capacity to absorb additional development.

Question 47
I object to the PE3 Tanyard Field development. The landowner has sought planning permission for this site for over 40 years and the reasons for objection still apply. It is unsuitable for development as it is located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / High Weald National Landscape. The site’s drainage is inadequate, steeply sloping, and surface water run‑off is a major problem throughout the village.

5
Utities outdated
Not coping
Damage Roads
Parking
Raw Sewage Issues
Public Transport - Joke
DR Surgeries- CAN'T get Appt
Schools can't cope with Add Children
No Taxi Service Avalable.
Hospital transport Non existant.
Track - Bridal access protected
for Horse, Richers and Water
Issues with Work Car park police Not Interested.
I object to the planning of
PES Malling Bus Park, as
this will look onto the back
of my property, Vulnerable
Persons live here.
HGV flushing Systems for horse +
Cart + adjoining houses drains cant
cope,
School lane inaccessible for Horse and Cart due to
Parking Issues.
EXITING Malthouse Bus Park
onto the Malting is dangerous
and accidents waiting to
happen.
Community Carpark used for
football
fetes
Dog shows - should not have
dogs in the Rec Ground
People need Policing / Charged
If Seen.
Jempsons - floods @
bottom If it ceased to
exist.
Pharmacy.
Food
ATM GARAGE, Post office.
all this hangs on Jempsons Shoulders

Question 47
PE3 Tanyard Field
Maltings Business Park
Woodlands are protected
Loss of light with height of the development
Houses already there being overlooked
Wildlife displacement
I am not against some building being done in the village
It’s the quantity, not being for locals and infrastructure/amenities need to be improved first

Question 1
Access unsafe coming onto main road on brow of hill
Local doctors, dentists already at capacity
Services – water – old pipes won’t cope with extra demands
Bus routes for village being cut

Question 5
The infrastructure needs updating and maintained
Pumping station is out of date and poorly maintained
I have worries about supplies – water, burst pipes, power cuts, loss of internet and phone coverage
The repair to my food side stop‑cock took nearly months to be done
My neighbours have had sewage in their gardens
The new house built not long ago had flooding
Congestion in the roads from the main road to the Maltings – parking bad already
If they build on the business park it will get worse
When pavilion used or the field (football) it can be difficult to get to the main road
Parking in front of business park should be for pavilion and field use
The damage to the roads and pavements has not been fixed since the last lot of buildings
I strongly object to the number of flats being proposed

Question 6
School Lane vehicle access restricted already
Cars park half on the pavement
Access for new builds will add to an already bad problem
Road not wide enough – narrows and hill
Pressure on the school and safety for children

Question 47 (second block)
Proposed planning for PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park
Why take away small local businesses – upping the rent to move makes it impossible to survive
Loss of parking for community events on recreation ground
PE3 – loss of land used by local farmer for grazing
Jempsons closed on a Sunday which has all of the amenities, pharmacy, post office
Conway come out for SE Water to pump water to prevent flooding in horses/garden of Main Street
Bus times are not workable
I drive at the moment, but would not be able to use public transport for appointments etc.
PE4 – Access not good
Need more affordable homes, not 4 and 5 bed homes
Traffic calming needed

Question 5
They will be taking away green belt land which will mean more local flooding
The sewage system will not cope with that many houses as it has not been upgraded
We have not another dentist or doctors to cope with more people and not another school

Question 6
Peasmarsh is a village not a town

Question 47
PE5 Malthouse Business Park planning
The road to the Maltings is already congested with cars because people from Main Road use it for parking
The car park is for people that use the football field which is hired out for people to use

Question 47
We also have a lot of football matches played which can also cause congestion with parking
So if flats are built on this land it is going to add more congestion to the road leading to the Maltings and The Old Hop Gardens

PART 2 CHAPTER 4 - WE ALREAD HAVE REGULAR WATER SUPPLY ISSUES + FLOODI NG DUE TO POOR
DRAINAGE. POWER is ALSO AN ISSUE THE BUS SERVICES LIMITED - AND RECENTLY REDUCED NO MEDICAL) DENTAL FACILITY IN NEAR AREA -LET ALONE To COPE WITH MORE.

PART 3 CHAPTER 7, 47, PE1-PE5 - SPEED ON MAIN STREET Though 30 IS SELDOM ADHERED TO. SO JUNCTION ON BROW OF HILL AN BENDS IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO CLAPPEN

NOT MUCH FACILTY FOR YOUNGER GENERATION, AN IFLUX COULD MAKE ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN VILLAGE MUCH MORE LIKELY.

Qu.I Upon reading the original local development plans, the proposed document did mention anything about the following: PE2 was added and not specified. PE4 and PE5 were not included in the initial village development plans.

Qu 5 The Drainage and sewage system in peasmarsh area have become a problem over the years. They are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year have seen raw sewage jetting up and overflowing through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently. The report stating that the drainage was adequate and there was no flood risk is wrong! I feel this has not been looked at properly from a development point of view. Our neighbours have had issues with sewage flowing back into their homes causing flooding. Peasmarsh's geography puts us low in comparison to the water table and this does not help matters. Recent rain falls are getting heavier causing more surface water again adding more issues to the drainage.

Qu.5 Utilities - gigaclear super fast fiber broadband is not available to all due to outdated infrastructure. Only recently we had a 4 day outage causing lots of issues with work and home life.5 Parking in the Maltings area is inadequate - people park wherever they can blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on the grass verges damaging the pathways and making it dangerous and hazardous to pedestrians in particular children. People drive too fast up to where PE5 is proposed as there are no traffic calming solutions in force. They also park on the junction making it very difficult to see when driving and causing dangerous conditions. Additional houses on the PE5 proposed site would only make things worse. If 6 houses are built there would be a minimum further 6 vehicles if not more being majority households have 2 vehicles. This will only add to the ongoing over crowded roads. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use constantly. The recreation ground, play park and football pavilion are used by so many people, locals and people from outside the village, removing the car park leaves no where other than the already congested road to park.

An influx of additional vehicles will also present an issue for emergency services causing access problems in emergency situations. In recent years we ourselves have had an ambulance out twice for our young children where they had no option but to block the road to help us and cars were double parked!!
We have a residential home on our road also and the frequently have emergency services out to them which again they have no option but to block the roads caused but over congested roads.

Increased volume of vehicles will make the roads in peasmarsh in particular The Maltings worse then they currently are. The state of the roads are in need of immediate attention which we have been told by the council 'is not a priority' !!??

Peasmarsh's nearest doctor's surgery is in Rye. When we moved to peasmarsh, Northiam surgery told us that we are out of their catchment so that leaves Rye to take on an additional influx of patients with all the new houses proposed. Public transport services are not frequent which will make simple tasks like doctors appointments problematic.

Qu. 5 Will the aesthetic of all the houses proposed be in keeping with the surrounding area?. There currently are no flats in the Maltings like they proposed in PE5 and in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area. I have concerns that PE5 will directly overlook my garden and my neighbours. This will affect my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house. Losing basic privacy will have a direct impact on mental health and this is very important to avoid this.

Public transport needs a big boost if new houses are to be built as we are very remote and more and more people rely on public transport to get about. If this becomes an issue due to frequent services then there will be lots of issues regarding basic daily needs.

Qu.6 Work, shopping, appointments etc. Concern over the size of the primary school and capacity issues with an influx of families moving to the village.

Access to the school is extremely bad for vehicles as it is a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic so this needs to be considered very carefully and clearly.

The crossing on main street needs attention too as this is used every day by parents talking children to school. The road is supposed to be 30mph but speeding traffic is a daily problem and very dangerous. More houses, more problems, better solutions required like zebra crossing of traffic calming.

Qu. 13 The volume of housing proposed in proportion to the size of the village is unfair. While development is required to a degree, this many houses is far too many for such a small village. The combined sites from PEI to PE5 equate to almost doubling the size of the village and in doing so without updating infrastructure is not right and will again cause issues later down the line.

Qu. 47
PE5 is within 15 meters of protected ancient woodland. Building here would be detrimental to the environment. The woodland has precious wildlife and heritage being ancient and for that reason I feel it is wrong to develop. Wildlife will be displaced no matter how good measures are taken. What green space we have will be lost too with potential trees and grass areas being dug up. Open green space has a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more buildings will do no good to mental health.

We will also lose our community grit bin and this poses a health and safety risk. If we can't gain easy access to this big, then injuries may occur in icy and snowy conditions. The existing car park in the PE5 area is used daily by so many, taking this away for development is just ridiculous. We have a local recreation ground where people won't be able to park and gain access to the play area and surrounding field. This takes away a basic right to enjoy a designated open green space causing potential distress. Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

Qu.67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

Qu.I Upon reading the original local development plans, the proposed document did mention anything about the following: PE2 was added and not specified. PE4 and PE5 were not included in the initial village development plans.

Qu 5 The Drainage and sewage system in peasmarsh area have become a problem over the years. They are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year have seen raw sewage jetting up and overflowing through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently. The report stating that the drainage was adequate and there was no flood risk is wrong! I feel this has not been looked at properly from a development point of view. Our neighbours have had issues with sewage flowing back into their homes causing flooding. Peasmarsh's geography puts us low in comparison to the water table and this does not help matters. Recent rain falls are getting heavier causing more surface water again adding more issues to the drainage.

Qu.5 Utilities - gigaclear super fast fiber broadband is not available to all due to outdated infrastructure. Only recently we had a 4 day outage causing lots of issues with work and home life.5 Parking in the Maltings area is inadequate - people park wherever they can blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on the grass verges damaging the pathways and making it dangerous and hazardous to pedestrians in particular children. People drive too fast up to where PE5 is proposed as there are no traffic calming solutions in force. They also park on the junction making it very difficult to see when driving and causing dangerous conditions. Additional houses on the PE5 proposed site would only make things worse. If 6 houses are built there would be a minimum further 6 vehicles if not more being majority households have 2 vehicles. This will only add to the ongoing over crowded roads. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use constantly. The recreation ground, play park and football pavilion are used by so many people, locals and people from outside the village, removing the car park leaves no where other than the already congested road to park.

An influx of additional vehicles will also present an issue for emergency services causing access problems in emergency situations. In recent years we ourselves have had an ambulance out twice for our young children where they had no option but to block the road to help us and cars were double parked!!
We have a residential home on our road also and the frequently have emergency services out to them which again they have no option but to block the roads caused but over congested roads.

Increased volume of vehicles will make the roads in peasmarsh in particular The Maltings worse then they currently are. The state of the roads are in need of immediate attention which we have been told by the council 'is not a priority' !!??

Peasmarsh's nearest doctor's surgery is in Rye. When we moved to peasmarsh, Northiam surgery told us that we are out of their catchment so that leaves Rye to take on an additional influx of patients with all the new houses proposed. Public transport services are not frequent which will make simple tasks like doctors appointments problematic.

Qu. 5 Will the aesthetic of all the houses proposed be in keeping with the surrounding area?. There currently are no flats in the Maltings like they proposed in PE5 and in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area. I have concerns that PE5 will directly overlook my garden and my neighbours. This will affect my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house. Losing basic privacy will have a direct impact on mental health and this is very important to avoid this.

Public transport needs a big boost if new houses are to be built as we are very remote and more and more people rely on public transport to get about. If this becomes an issue due to frequent services then there will be lots of issues regarding basic daily needs.

Qu.6 Work, shopping, appointments etc. Concern over the size of the primary school and capacity issues with an influx of families moving to the village.

Access to the school is extremely bad for vehicles as it is a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic so this needs to be considered very carefully and clearly.

The crossing on main street needs attention too as this is used every day by parents talking children to school. The road is supposed to be 30mph but speeding traffic is a daily problem and very dangerous. More houses, more problems, better solutions required like zebra crossing of traffic calming.

Qu. 13 The volume of housing proposed in proportion to the size of the village is unfair. While development is required to a degree, this many houses is far too many for such a small village. The combined sites from PEI to PE5 equate to almost doubling the size of the village and in doing so without updating infrastructure is not right and will again cause issues later down the line.

Qu. 47
PE5 is within 15 meters of protected ancient woodland. Building here would be detrimental to the environment. The woodland has precious wildlife and heritage being ancient and for that reason I feel it is wrong to develop. Wildlife will be displaced no matter how good measures are taken. What green space we have will be lost too with potential trees and grass areas being dug up. Open green space has a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more buildings will do no good to mental health.

We will also lose our community grit bin and this poses a health and safety risk. If we can't gain easy access to this big, then injuries may occur in icy and snowy conditions. The existing car park in the PE5 area is used daily by so many, taking this away for development is just ridiculous. We have a local recreation ground where people won't be able to park and gain access to the play area and surrounding field. This takes away a basic right to enjoy a designated open green space causing potential distress. Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

Qu.67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

Q1: House prices are dropping there is no need for 146 houses standing empty. Peasmarsh deserves & want to keep character & views that we love & appreciate for calm & tranquility.

Q5: Peasmarsh has many underground springs which leads to flooding. No doctors in our village we have to use The Hub which is ued by other villages in the area including Rye. Over crowding of our local school, 148 houses could mean 2 children per house equalling an extra 296 children attending school involving road safety with more cars for drop offs in a very narrow School Lane with very little pavements.

Q6: This new devept planned is a & should be a non starter, we don't have proper drainage, sewage ability of pumping station, public transport, medical support, energy utilities, schools etc.! More traffic on our already busy road & more heavy lorries delivering to Jempson causing more pot holes & more congestion. Peasmarsh will be over come and over crowded with the volume of it all & will take away the words "our village"!!

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

RDC has formally sought views upon the Draft Local Plan. The comments below represent my response to this invitation.

A/ THE DRAFT PLAN. (the Plan):
The Plan lacks ambition,
Repeats the errors and failings of the existing and previous Local Plans,
Is discordant with its failure to adopt an "infrastructure first" approach to new development
is short sighted in its allocation of possible housing sites
1/ The RDC "State of the District" (SD) report 2025 sets out clearly why an ambitious Plan is required. RDC is ranked 135 out of 317 English local authorities (1 being highest) with higher percentages than the local average claiming a range of welfare benefits. Though employment is generally above regional and national averages, gross median pay is substantially lower at £31k compared with England's average of £38k. Significantly this negative gap of 17.5% is increasing. Employment is dominated by small and micro-businesses with businesses employing more than 250 people comprising just 0.02% of total businesses in the District. (sources: RDC State of the District report). There are correlations arising from this data supplemented by the facts that working age people in the District have lower than national average degree level education (38% v 43% in England) (source:SD). With the District's working age population being 51% of the whole, those under 16 comprising 17% and, significantly, and growing, those over 65 representing 33%, and with the employment and income profiles set out above, it should be a clear objective of the Plan show intent to improve both economic and social facets across Rother. As drafted the Plan demonstrates no such intent or ambition.

2/ The draft Plan repeats much of what has been seen in previous Local Plans but which has demonstrably failed to be the economic drivers expected of them. The number of existing, but undeveloped, "Enterprise Park" sites is testimony to this failure, but the draft Plan simply repeats them. Unless a much more radical approach is adopted future RDC "State of the District" reports will show a greater, and accelerating decline of weekly earnings compared with the national average, increasing demands for welfare benefits and a continuing exodus of higher educated working age people to other areas where their aspirations can be achieved. The "gap" is likely to be filled by more people of pensionable age with their consequent demands on the NHS and other age related benefit services.

3/ The draft Plan sets out no clear and practical approach to the provision of the infrastructure necessary for the successful and sustainable development of the sites allocated within it. Specifically, the District has a woeful primary road network comprising a discordant and fragmented series of routeways connecting to the principle east west and northerly Strategic Roads (the A259 and the A21). There is no defined "northern bypass" avoiding the urban areas for through traffic, the vestigial Link Road joins the A259 within Bexhill town and the Sidley bypass arm peters out on the Battle Road. The A259 is already noted as being over capacity. The Draft Plan refers to the Jacobs Study of three possible "extensions" to the Link road, yet none offer the correct solution. Clarity is needed about the purpose of any western extension of the Sidley bypass or an alternative route connecting to the A259 west of Bexhill with equal clarity about where such a road needs to connect to the north and west of that town. It is further noted that the Plan repeats suggestions from the current Local Plan suggesting improvements to Little Common roundabout. Such improvements are not specified. However, Little Common roundabout has already been subject to very limited modifications as a result of planning consents recently granted. It is noted that any further changes will be very difficult to accomplish. Not only do neither National Highways, nor East Sussex County Council (Highways) own or control much of the surrounding paved areas alongside the public footpaths (they are private forecourt spaces), but the roundabout itself is elongated with four points of entry onto tight turning circumference. Dual lane traffic movement is highly restricted, and impossible when articulated vehicles are maneuvering. With shops, a pub, a bus stop and other built features bordering the roundabout site it is quite unclear what, if any, changes can now be made. Moreover, were these to be possible, the question must be asked ; "why have they not been carried out already?"
The draft Plan assumes foul and drinking water facilities will be available or will be provided at some, indeterminate future date. This is disingenuous and flies in the face of reality. The many problems across the water industry have been well documented and RDC has experienced the failings of our local suppliers, Southern Water and South East Water, to manage their businesses in the ways we should all expect. This said, it is noted that RDC expects new developments to be approved only where connections to foul water systems "with adequate capacity" already exist. This vital caveat is crucial to decision taking about any planning applications for those sites. Officers must hold fast to their principles on this point, and it would not be appropriate for them to deflect this issue of system capacity by simply defaulting to the Water Industry Act which enables developers to hold a statutory right to connect to drainage systems. A right to connect is not the same as a right to connect to a system with adequate capacity. Accordingly, it is suggested that the RDC condition of adequate capacity should be more strongly worded to avoid any misunderstandings.
The assessment under point 1 above points to increasing pressure upon the already pressurised NHS, schools and other social services in the District. Again, despite an intent to build a considerable number of new homes in the District, mostly in Bexhill, no commitments are provided about the provision of the essential support services that will be required.
The Draft Plan fails to offer an "infrastructure fist" programme, or, even an "infrastructure and development integrated" programme to ensure essential services are provided contemporaneous with housing and other development. Without such committed and funded programmes, intolerable burdens will be imposed on already well overstretched social services.

4/ In housing development terms the District is constrained by its geography and topography. The coastline, wetlands to the east and west and the National Landscape (AoNB) to the north impose a range of specific challenges if housing sites are to be allocated as required by central Government. The draft Plan continues the historic approach of allocating the majority of new housing around Bexhill (Ref: the Emerging Local Plan site allocations). The small towns and villages within the National Landscape designated area make a contribution to the whole but this is relatively small in aggregate terms. I will make some specific comments about the allocations in the Bexhill West Growth area below but note here that in the Plan sites in Bexhill are allocated to the north and west of the town. Crucially, the Plan observes that the main reason for this is that the protected wetlands of the Glynde valley dividing Bexhill from St. Leonards precludes further development in that area. The Pevensey Levels to the west of Bexhill provide an equally inviolate buffer from development to the west of the town. The site allocations in the draft plan to the west of Bexhill (BX 20 to BX28) for 1923 new homes, should they all be approved, would leave no further land available for development west of Bexhill. This would be equally true should not all the sites be approved for development. Either way, RDC would have only one remaining direction for alternative site allocation within this Plan or for, what might be called, the next round of site requirements looking beyond the current allocations. The only way any such further sites can be found must be by allowing some form of development in larger volumes within the National Landscape (NL). Such proposals would, necessarily, have to be very carefully assessed and considered within the context of NL limitations. I venture that a large number of village/small town extensions for housing development of volume would not be appropriate. I propose that the alternative of a new large village or small town concept, integrating homes, schools, shops,employment and health services and connected to rail and road networks would be preferable. The simultaneous provision of these forms of infrastructure would be essential for the successful creation of a vibrant, sustainable new community which could be focussed towards upwards of 6,000 new homes. Choosing a site for such a new community would need research, but, given the restrictions already outlined above on future development near Bexhill, the draft Plan should include proposals to bring forward a new community proposition as soon as possible. In this way the many and various important studies required to create a truly integrated, planned and funded master plan for the chosen site can be undertaken in a properly project managed way, avoiding the crisis managed approach that would become necessary if action is delayed. My own research has identified a possible site. This is in the valley to the south of Robertsbridge. Ready access to the railway and A21 would be available, the new community could be connected to and enhance Robertsbridge without imposing on the historic heart of that town and, visually, the new community would be relatively hidden from view (limited views mostly from the A21 Robertsbridge bypass). The visually more open area of the "high" National Landscape area would be untouched.
I do not believe RDC can defer action to include this form of proposal from inclusion in the draft Plan. Were it to do so, it would be abdication responsibility for an action that will inevitably be required. Not to start now will make decisions later much, much harder with delivery of resultant development deferred into the far distance. Starting now, offers the prospect of the start of delivery within the draft Plan horizon, with various agencies, (highways, water, health, education) being able to simultaneously plan, budget and fund their contributions to the integrated whole.

B/ HOUSING SITE ALLOCATION - WEST BEXHILL:
Ref: Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 - Development Strategy and Site Allocations. Part 4 - Site Allocations. section 7 - Site Allocations.)

BX19; I object to the removal of this public car park which enables folk to enjoy the coastline at Cooden Beach, where, in summer especially, parking close to the beach is a valuable asset for families. Parking distances away, on public roads, is a burden on families who will have buggies and beach equipment to manage.

BX20: This site is already subject to lengthy debate and assessment. Despite an Outline planning consent having been granted, the developers have failed so far to produce acceptable proposals for a highway connection to the A259 ( Barnhorn Road), surface water drainage and ecological objections. Indeed their most recent drainage ideas were seriously retrograde and did not comply with earlier principles. It is noteworthy that these issues were first raised as concerns by objectors to the RDC DaSA some 9 years' ago. It remains very unclear if this development can proceed.

BX21: This site would become an extension to the development of BX20. As such it would result in an increase in traffic accessing Barnhorn Road for the intended junction. However, this junction is not yet capable of meeting the National Highways requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges within the BX20 planning application process so it is impossible to see how this site can be allocated . National Highways has previously stated that the maximum number of houses it would accept having access via the Barnhorn Road junction under BX20 was 160 (ex the caravan site). The inclusion of BX19 takes this above that threshold.

BX22: this allocated site has no point of access to the A259, Barnhorn Road, identified. As such, and given that access cannot be via the BX20 access point for reasons of traffic volume and non-compliance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, it is difficult to see how this site could possibly be treated as "deliverable". It is clearly not deliverable without an access point. RDC should be clear about where this will be or remove this site from the allocation.

BX24, BX26 and BX27: These three sites are taken together as my comments are common to each of them. Fundamentally the access of these sites onto the A259 Barnhorn Road, create grounds for deep uncertainty about the deliverability of the sites for development. The use of Coneybarrow Lane is denied and the Barnhorn Road in the vicinity of the potential alternative access points, topographically difficult, subject to sight line restrictions because of road curves and existing side road/cul;-de-sac access points. National Highways will require compliance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges if it is to accept further junctions onto this busy and overcapacity Strategic National Highway. It is hard to see them accepting these proposals.

Generally - BX20 to BX 28:
These sites continue the RDC approach of allocating sites in an unplanned way. Each is regarded individually with no declared master plan for the housing development or any supporting infrastructure (of which there is little). The result is a series of incoherent individual housing neighbourhoods (BX23 excepted) - very far from placemaking and lacking in any form of collective community.
Beyond this, when considering the traffic impacts, effects on the protections of the Pevensey Levels and drainage intentions, it is necessary to look at the potential cumulative impacts. No mention of these is made in the Plan, yet it is already known that National Highways has safety and traffic volume concerns about the A259 from Pevensey Roundabout into central Bexhill. The site allocation proposals will exacerbate these, already unacceptable highways concerns.
Foul water disposal is a further area of concern. The existing sewer in Barnhorn road is too small - even before the current Rosewood Park development was approved, with resultant foul water flooding a frequent event (if mainly in winter). Southern Water acknowledges that it has no plan in the pipeline to fund and commission any upgrades to the system so adding up to 1900 extra houses will exaggerate the current pollution problem. This cannot be allowed to happen - and, again, the cumulative impact of the proposals must be the starting point for assessment of future drainage requirements if foul flooding is to be avoided. At the minimum a clear, defined upgrade plan, costed, funded and programmed, must be in place before any planning approvals are granted for these sites, noting again the condition of adequate foul water capacity listed in the Plan details for each site.
Strict protections for the Pevensey Levels must be ensured with cumulative impacts central to decisions taken. It is noted that each site specifies the need to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

Finally, the risk that some of these sites may not be developable reinforces the strategic proposition I set out in point A/ para 4 above. If RDC cannot progress with any of these sites, or those elsewhere in the draft Plan, it will be forced to look in the designated National Landscape for volume sites. I urge that it does so now and incorporates a proposal into the next iteration of the draft Plan.

I commend these comments to you.
Yours

Q2 Target unrealistic given protected High Weald National Landscape; no evidence of local housing need on the scale suggested; inadequate infrastructure for current population.
Q3 Much stronger emphasis and specific localised plans for employment opportunities needed – particularly, for example, regarding tourism, green energy development and retrofitting, sustainable farming, rural skills and crafts etc.
Q5 Before housing numbers can be determined, revised Infrastructure Delivery Plan needs to specify detailed commitments rather than targets from agencies regarding: water supply, drainage and sewerage capacity; road, rail and bus capacity; energy supplies; health infrastructure; SEN provision, community parking provision etc – to ensure whatever housing target is finally agreed can be sustained.
Hurst Green requires a bypass/relief road in order to thrive as a community economically, socially, etc.
Q7 Housing densities of 35 per hectare is too high – much higher than any other area within Hurst Green.
Q56 HG1 and HG2 already granted planning permission – 54 houses.
HG3 – as this is a relatively sustainable location close to the village centre some reduced density (35 per hectare is too high) housing could be accommodated but community parking provision should be a condition.
HG4 – this development should be rejected: 150 houses is a major development completely out of keeping with a High Weald village; it would be a prominent visual intrusion on the landscape; there is no evidence of housing need on this scale in the village; and there is insufficient infrastructure existing or committed to accommodate such a large increase in population.
The eastern boundary of the above site outlines and existing village development should be considered as a potential relief road route for Hurst Green.

See attachments.

Dear Rother District Council,

I sent a long response to your previous Local Plan consultation and I
have little to add. I think the plan is largely delusional and has no
relationship to the harsh reality of living in Rother. The roads are
difficult to drive on and we have had four new tyres in the last few
years, the rural bus service is irregular and unreliable, the local GP
Surgery is oversubscribed. In Fairlight the issues of flooding, surface
water, drainage and sewage, make life difficult. One resident tested
positive for ecoli and their family frequently experience nausea from
sewage incidents.

The Central Government reliance on private sector developers building
new homes to grow the economy has little to do with planning
applications. Meeting the Government housing targets will not meet the
needs of those on the lowest incomes in temporary accomodation. Quite
the opposite, it will increase the number of buy to let landlords, air
b&b's and housing with fleecehold arrangements, paying management fees
for garss cutting, SUDS maintenance.

It would be more honest to start with the data of how many planning
permissions have already been granted in Rother.

How many empty properties are there?

How many brownfield sites?

How many under occupied houses are there?

How many times has Rother prosecuted any developers or served any
injunctions for TPO's?

We live in Fairlight near the doomed Market Garden Development, now the
subject of national research due to the environmental harm caused and
the fact that one of the houses is built so near a watercourse, the
stream bank has collapsed. This will be part of Rothers legacy, all be
it the Planning Inspectorate approved it at the end, but It was always
supported by Planning Officers. The "Landscape Management Plan" removed
all the historic hedgerow, most of the trees and shrubs. Only one house
out of 16 sold to another developer. The rest have had to go to rent as
no one will be able to get insurance. Never an apology, never any face
to face meetings with residents. 17 individuals are moving out of
Fairlight as the Market Garden Site is such an eye sore. 4 households
have already left.

I am opposed to the East Field/Wakehams Field development as there is no
demand for housing that has no walkway to the village. You have to cross
the main road twice and on a blind bend across a fast road. The repeated
attempts to build on this underwater site make people move out of the
village.

We will be glad when Rother is no more and we are part of a unitary
authority with a functioning complaints department.

When Developers make planning applications it should be Southern Water
that is required to provide proper data: how many storm overflows, water
quality testing, how many man hole covers lifted, how many call outs.
Planning should be data driven, not "Planning Income" for cash strapped
local authorities.

I'm sorry if this response does not meet your Consultation format, but I
don't have time to fill out the form it was too long.

Draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 Consultation
Thank you for sharing the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 with the Pevensey and
Cuckmere Water Level Management Board, after reading the document we have made
some observations and have the following comments:
The draft Environmental Policy ENV2 recognises the role Internal Drainage Boards play in
ensuring water is appropriately managed within their districts as well as the need to reduce
flood risk and promote the benefits of blue /green infrastructure. The PCWLMB recognises
this as an important strategic objective for Rother District Council.
However, it is noted that policy text for Part 4 Site Allocations is not consistent when referring
to the application of ENV 2 at each site. Sustainable Drainage should apply to all new
development, not a select few within the local plan for example BX20 correctly states that
ENV 2 applies to the site while there is no mention of the policy in BX19. And like wise CR1
correctly states that ENV 2 applies to the site but no mention of the policy in CR2.
ENV 2 recognises that drainage systems should allow for ongoing maintenance. However,
the proposed development should also reserve adequate space for access and maintenance
of Sustainable Drainage Systems and other water bodies within the sites. This is to ensure
that the water bodies and drainage system can be maintained and operated safely and
sustainably for the lifetime of the development. This should apply to all development sites,
including those in the PCWLMB’s catchment area.
Development sites in West Bexhill Growth Area discharge their water to watercourses in the
Pevensey Levels whose drainage is supplemented by pumping during extreme rainfall
events. These pumps were installed in the 1970s and have reached the end of their design
life with limited funding available for their replacement. There is, therefore, a likelihood that
these watercourses will have high water levels over long periods in winter where drainage
systems might struggle to discharge water into the watercourses. During such periods,
drainage systems should have been designed to take that into account to ensure it does not
result in flooding on or offsite. In addition, the PCWLMB has a byelaw that requires anyone increasing the flow or volume of
water discharged into its drainage district to agree the discharge rates with the Board prior to
making the discharge. Applicants should seek pre-applications with the Board and LLFA at
the earliest opportunity for all sites within the water level management board’s catchment
area. This applies West Bexhill Growth Area, North Bexhill Growth Area, parts of Central
Urban Area, Catsfield and Crowhurst
There is little opportunity for infiltration in the catchment area of the water level management
board due to impermeable geologies and high / perched groundwater. Therefore, space
should be considered when designing surface water drainage as a lager area could be
required for attenuation prior to discharge to a waterbody.
The PCWLMB will also take into consideration water quality passing into the Boards
drainage district especially in the Pevensey Levels. This is because there are a number of
species within the watercourses that are dependent on clean water.

I am struggling with portal access to comment on local plans for North Bexhill, but wish to register concerns for the local infrastructure (including road access to central Bexhill) as the area expands. It is visually apparent now that current traffic is overusing the current infrastructure, and with the addition of so many more dwellings, can only deteriorate further and more rapidly. It would seem that without additional schools (both primary and secondary) in the extended areas, medical facilities, public transport and other services that the new homes would be isolated from the existing community of Bexhill.

To start off with I would like to stress that the meetings held regarding the planning overall have not been fair. The first initial meeting was held to discuss concerns with the Rother district planning officer who never showed and we later found they cancelled at short notice which was only made apparent on the day of the meeting so villagers couldn't even raise concerns or ask questions. This is no way a fair system and a poor show!

I would further like to add that the online submissions are not easy and complicated which further adds to putting people off stressing their concerns over these 'new developments' which only adds to an unfair system!

Qu.1 During the initial Local development plans, the proposed document did Not include the following: PE2 which is an extension next to PEI essentially. PE4 which was never included in the initial village development plans. PE5 which was never included in the initial village development plan. PE5 especially is ridiculous for so many reasons to follow but to find out the local businesses in the existing units that are rented out via contract had no clue that PE5 was a suggested site and is not fair! It would be very detrimental to the local businesses.



Qu. 5 The Drainage and sewage system within Peasmarsh in particular 'The Maltings' area are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year raw sewage has come up through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently which voids the report of the drainage being adequate and there not being a floodrisk. You only have to walk down the main street and almost all the drains are blocked up with debris, clearly this has not been looked
at from a development point of view. I have spoken with neighbours and found on numerous occasions they have had sewage back up into their homes through no fault of their own. Peasmarsh naturally has a high water table due to its location and this combined with surface water from heavy rainfall becomes an issue. If we take the last year in comparison, rainfall has been at one of its highest levels
and is only forecast to get worse in years to come due to climate change. There have been 2 occasions recently within the recreation grounds of potential sink holes. One was dug up and found an 'OLD' drain had collapsed causing a large hole to appear and the second which very recently (week commencing 9th march 2026) was addressed which further adds to drainage infrastructure being inadequate and questionable.

Qu. 5 The utilities within peasmarsh are outdated and although some efforts have been made to upgrade these for instance the broadband with gigaclear there are still properties without faster fiber broadband and have no options other than to keep old copper lines running, our house for one which gigaclear has told me they won't be returning to add a fixture for connectivity. This is due to access issues from an already installed infrastructure and telegraph pole system only 2 feet from our drive. The Broadband in particular was down in the village for 4 days due to a green junction box being flooded so again this is unreliable and costly.

Qu. 5 Parking in the Maltings area is a big problem with people blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on grass verges which then turn into mud baths and damaging the footpaths, and parking on the junctions opposite where PE5 is proposed. This is against the highway code and most of all dangerous. Photo attached. Adding further houses on the PE5 site would only make things worse adding a minimum further 6 vehicles if not double that being most households have 2 vehicles these days to an already over crowded road. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use daily so they can use the business units football recreation ground, play park and football pavilion. Taking this car park away leaves no where other than the already busy overflowing road to park for people to use the recreation ground and play area. I know for a fact people from outside the village like to use the play ground for their children to play in, in particular children from the village primary school who don't live in peasmarsh but neighbouring villages.

I'd also like to add that emergency services frequently come down The Maltings due to elderly residential housing, access is tight at the best of times which adding more houses to PE5 would cause a negative impact to existing residents and further causing potential dangers if access was blocked due to an influx of additional vehicles.

Outside the elderly residential housing is a dedicated bay for emergency vehicles however this is often used by people who have nowhere else to park. Photo attached.

The roads in The Maltings, Main Street and throughout peasmarsh are in an unacceptable state. Countless times I have reported damage to the roads, pot holes and raised iron works but each time the council says 'it's not a priority' adding further houses to The Maltings and surrounding area would only make this situation incredibly worse. The increasing volume of traffic driving up and down the roads is not going to be beneficial to anyone. Issues still to this date have not been fixed.

Report references: October 2024 - POT027514 - not fixed December 2025 - POT045086 - not fixed February 2026 - POT059434 - not fixed
All the above references are from East Sussex highways and they are all the same issue which again to this date nothing has been done. No one has even come out to look regarding the latest report so adding further vehicles to an already damaged road makes no sense!

To my understanding and after talking to other locals including parish council members the roads in The Maltings in particular were supposed to be resurfaced completely when they built the newer houses and elderly residential homes. This was never carried out although money was set aside to carry these works out by the council and in breach of planning?? This brings down the area and makes driving frustrating avoiding potholes daily.

Within the area of The Maltings lighting is on constantly throughout the night which is for one light pollution and secondly proves a hindrance when trying to get to sleep at night. Adding further houses at PE5 runs the risk of further light pollution and disruption.

Peasmarsh has no doctor's surgery. As residents of peasmarsh we have to travel to rye for our nearest surgery. Northiam surgery we were told that we are out of their catchment but either way this presents an issue of how people are to get to and from the doctors due to insufficient travel infrastructure. Bus services are not frequent and I have recently found out that the bus service from Northiam to Rye which would go through peasmarsh is due to have a reduced service. Adding houses to all the development sites in peasmarsh would cause a negative impact on travel.
Qu. 5 Question about the aesthetic of the houses at PE5 and whether they will be in keeping with the surrounding area. There currently are no flats like the proposed in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area.

PE5 would directly over look my garden and my neighbours gardens, This is an invasion to my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house that are newly built within the past 6 years or so. We can't have our front curtains in the lounge or bedroom open as a result of this due to privacy so adding further houses at PE5 would be an invasion of privacy. This also has an impact on how much natural light can enter our home which will affect anyone's Mental Wellbeing!

Recent knowledge found out by talking with parish council members is that the council recently sold off council owned homes in the maltings area due to no interest to develop or refurbish, yet new houses are being proposed at PE5 and PE4 when these houses that have now been sold could have been updated !?

Public transport is irregular and timetables a not easily workable to a daily routine for people who work but don't drive, new houses could present an issue for people getting to and from jobs, especially the younger generation who aren't driving due to age restrictions but want to work and have to travel. New houses and more people need more frequent and better public transport. If people cannot get access to better public transport then they may have to resort to using independent taxi services which cost a small fortune and become un economical due to the cost of living and inflation in reflection to how much different age groups can earn. This could have a massive impact on a person's Mental Wellbeing if they are being denied the simple right of travel to earn money which in this day and age you have to travel. Not everyone can work from home.

Qu. 6 School infrastructure - peasmarsh primary school is only small and has a limited number of places due to size and safe capacity. Adding an additional 143 new homes to the village is going to impact the school in good and bad ways. If the school cannot take children due to higher volumes what happens to the children that get refused?
Going to alternative schools in adjacent villages may not be an option if travel is a concern and how will the schools funding be affected regarding SENCO and support teachers. These factors need to be thought about and appropriate action needs to be addressed.

Access to the school is via a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic.

Pedestrian Crossings on the main street would need to be updated to zebra crossings to give right of way to pedestrians and traffic calming solutions would need to be implemented as speeding is a big concern in the village. We have had a friend that got clipped by a car while using the crossing - thankfully she sustained no injuries as it
was her bag that got struck. Adding 143 new homes will increase foot traffic and cause danger to life if these matters are not addressed and updated. The existing crossing is not safe as vehicles do not slow down as they now should according to the highway code that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross the road they have right
of way.

Qu.13 The amount of housing in proportion to the size of the village is completely out of context. Upon looking at all the suggested sites from PEI to PE5 the size of the development as a whole is almost doubling the size of the village and I must stress we are a village. Not a town and have no wish to become a town. Village life is part
of peasmarsh's history and cramming more and more houses into an already over stretched village is wrong. The volume of new houses in comparison to the size of the existing houses in the village is again wrong although I do not disagree with some development taking place. I must stress this amount is unfair and will cause years of
disruption to all who live in the village and problems which will in turn cost more money to rectify regarding infrastructure issues etc.

Qu.47 Regarding PEI, my concerns here are that the new junction that is to be created will be on a brow of a hill and this could potentially cause an accident hotspot. Further to an earlier response speeding in the village is a big issue so traffic calming measures need to be applied here to prevent danger to life by careless drivers!! Further to PE1 the drainage toward Jempsons has recently flooded where the drains were blocked causing the road to be impassable.

PE5 suggested the site has a boundary zone which is within 15 meters of the ancient woodland and as the government website states. This is to protect the root system of trees, soil and animal habitats. The woodland is home to numerous wildlife and building at PE5 would be extremely detrimental to the surrounding woodland and wildlife. Animals will be displaced no matter how good a measures are applied and whichever way you look at it all of this needs protecting. Even the trees and grass area are a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more building and concrete will do no good.

If PE5 is developed and trees are removed this will 100% have an impact on surface water/flooding as trees take in vast volumes of water through their root systems. Removing trees and green space will cause water displacement which will cause further flooding and surface water issues. Removing the green space will also mean that the parish council supplied grit bin would be potentially misplaced causing an issue for residents wanting to travel toward the main street in peasmarsh safely in icy or snowy conditions. This could cause potential injuries if something so basic is taken away from the community.

Developing PE5 will put local businesses out of work and this will displace them and finding other suitable units to rent local and relevant to them will become a challenge, Businesses there are made up of local connections and you can just up sticks and move a business without complications so the is not fair on the businesses that run out of The Maltings Business Park. I have concerns that developing PE5 will de-value my property which will impact me and my neighbours negatively. Homes are places we live but are also investments for our families futures. New houses are no way "affordable" these days without a catch like part ownership and what hasn't been stated is whether the development at PE5 is for freehold and to be sold to new first time buyers or housing associations.

The Car park at PE5 site is in constant use daily and taking this from the communities is wrong! It is used by the villages and by people from surrounding villages for the entertainment for their children using the play ground. The recreation ground is part of the village life with regular football matches and used daily throughout the year in all weathers, taking what off-road parking is there away from the people and community is not the right decision! Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a
suitable option!

To start off with I would like to stress that the meetings held regarding the planning overall have not been fair. The first initial meeting was held to discuss concerns with the Rother district planning officer who never showed and we later found they cancelled at short notice which was only made apparent on the day of the meeting so villagers couldn't even raise concerns or ask questions. This is no way a fair system and a poor show!

I would further like to add that the online submissions are not easy and complicated which further adds to putting people off stressing their concerns over these 'new developments' which only adds to an unfair system!

Qu.1 During the initial Local development plans, the proposed document did Not include the following: PE2 which is an extension next to PEI essentially. PE4 which was never included in the initial village development plans. PE5 which was never included in the initial village development plan. PE5 especially is ridiculous for so many reasons to follow but to find out the local businesses in the existing units that are rented out via contract had no clue that PE5 was a suggested site and is not fair! It would be very detrimental to the local businesses.



Qu. 5 The Drainage and sewage system within Peasmarsh in particular 'The Maltings' area are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year raw sewage has come up through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently which voids the report of the drainage being adequate and there not being a floodrisk. You only have to walk down the main street and almost all the drains are blocked up with debris, clearly this has not been looked
at from a development point of view. I have spoken with neighbours and found on numerous occasions they have had sewage back up into their homes through no fault of their own. Peasmarsh naturally has a high water table due to its location and this combined with surface water from heavy rainfall becomes an issue. If we take the last year in comparison, rainfall has been at one of its highest levels
and is only forecast to get worse in years to come due to climate change. There have been 2 occasions recently within the recreation grounds of potential sink holes. One was dug up and found an 'OLD' drain had collapsed causing a large hole to appear and the second which very recently (week commencing 9th march 2026) was addressed which further adds to drainage infrastructure being inadequate and questionable.

Qu. 5 The utilities within peasmarsh are outdated and although some efforts have been made to upgrade these for instance the broadband with gigaclear there are still properties without faster fiber broadband and have no options other than to keep old copper lines running, our house for one which gigaclear has told me they won't be returning to add a fixture for connectivity. This is due to access issues from an already installed infrastructure and telegraph pole system only 2 feet from our drive. The Broadband in particular was down in the village for 4 days due to a green junction box being flooded so again this is unreliable and costly.

Qu. 5 Parking in the Maltings area is a big problem with people blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on grass verges which then turn into mud baths and damaging the footpaths, and parking on the junctions opposite where PE5 is proposed. This is against the highway code and most of all dangerous. Photo attached. Adding further houses on the PE5 site would only make things worse adding a minimum further 6 vehicles if not double that being most households have 2 vehicles these days to an already over crowded road. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use daily so they can use the business units football recreation ground, play park and football pavilion. Taking this car park away leaves no where other than the already busy overflowing road to park for people to use the recreation ground and play area. I know for a fact people from outside the village like to use the play ground for their children to play in, in particular children from the village primary school who don't live in peasmarsh but neighbouring villages.

I'd also like to add that emergency services frequently come down The Maltings due to elderly residential housing, access is tight at the best of times which adding more houses to PE5 would cause a negative impact to existing residents and further causing potential dangers if access was blocked due to an influx of additional vehicles.

Outside the elderly residential housing is a dedicated bay for emergency vehicles however this is often used by people who have nowhere else to park. Photo attached.

The roads in The Maltings, Main Street and throughout peasmarsh are in an unacceptable state. Countless times I have reported damage to the roads, pot holes and raised iron works but each time the council says 'it's not a priority' adding further houses to The Maltings and surrounding area would only make this situation incredibly worse. The increasing volume of traffic driving up and down the roads is not going to be beneficial to anyone. Issues still to this date have not been fixed.

Report references: October 2024 - POT027514 - not fixed December 2025 - POT045086 - not fixed February 2026 - POT059434 - not fixed
All the above references are from East Sussex highways and they are all the same issue which again to this date nothing has been done. No one has even come out to look regarding the latest report so adding further vehicles to an already damaged road makes no sense!

To my understanding and after talking to other locals including parish council members the roads in The Maltings in particular were supposed to be resurfaced completely when they built the newer houses and elderly residential homes. This was never carried out although money was set aside to carry these works out by the council and in breach of planning?? This brings down the area and makes driving frustrating avoiding potholes daily.

Within the area of The Maltings lighting is on constantly throughout the night which is for one light pollution and secondly proves a hindrance when trying to get to sleep at night. Adding further houses at PE5 runs the risk of further light pollution and disruption.

Peasmarsh has no doctor's surgery. As residents of peasmarsh we have to travel to rye for our nearest surgery. Northiam surgery we were told that we are out of their catchment but either way this presents an issue of how people are to get to and from the doctors due to insufficient travel infrastructure. Bus services are not frequent and I have recently found out that the bus service from Northiam to Rye which would go through peasmarsh is due to have a reduced service. Adding houses to all the development sites in peasmarsh would cause a negative impact on travel.
Qu. 5 Question about the aesthetic of the houses at PE5 and whether they will be in keeping with the surrounding area. There currently are no flats like the proposed in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area.

PE5 would directly over look my garden and my neighbours gardens, This is an invasion to my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house that are newly built within the past 6 years or so. We can't have our front curtains in the lounge or bedroom open as a result of this due to privacy so adding further houses at PE5 would be an invasion of privacy. This also has an impact on how much natural light can enter our home which will affect anyone's Mental Wellbeing!

Recent knowledge found out by talking with parish council members is that the council recently sold off council owned homes in the maltings area due to no interest to develop or refurbish, yet new houses are being proposed at PE5 and PE4 when these houses that have now been sold could have been updated !?

Public transport is irregular and timetables a not easily workable to a daily routine for people who work but don't drive, new houses could present an issue for people getting to and from jobs, especially the younger generation who aren't driving due to age restrictions but want to work and have to travel. New houses and more people need more frequent and better public transport. If people cannot get access to better public transport then they may have to resort to using independent taxi services which cost a small fortune and become un economical due to the cost of living and inflation in reflection to how much different age groups can earn. This could have a massive impact on a person's Mental Wellbeing if they are being denied the simple right of travel to earn money which in this day and age you have to travel. Not everyone can work from home.

Qu. 6 School infrastructure - peasmarsh primary school is only small and has a limited number of places due to size and safe capacity. Adding an additional 143 new homes to the village is going to impact the school in good and bad ways. If the school cannot take children due to higher volumes what happens to the children that get refused?
Going to alternative schools in adjacent villages may not be an option if travel is a concern and how will the schools funding be affected regarding SENCO and support teachers. These factors need to be thought about and appropriate action needs to be addressed.

Access to the school is via a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic.

Pedestrian Crossings on the main street would need to be updated to zebra crossings to give right of way to pedestrians and traffic calming solutions would need to be implemented as speeding is a big concern in the village. We have had a friend that got clipped by a car while using the crossing - thankfully she sustained no injuries as it
was her bag that got struck. Adding 143 new homes will increase foot traffic and cause danger to life if these matters are not addressed and updated. The existing crossing is not safe as vehicles do not slow down as they now should according to the highway code that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross the road they have right
of way.

Qu.13 The amount of housing in proportion to the size of the village is completely out of context. Upon looking at all the suggested sites from PEI to PE5 the size of the development as a whole is almost doubling the size of the village and I must stress we are a village. Not a town and have no wish to become a town. Village life is part
of peasmarsh's history and cramming more and more houses into an already over stretched village is wrong. The volume of new houses in comparison to the size of the existing houses in the village is again wrong although I do not disagree with some development taking place. I must stress this amount is unfair and will cause years of
disruption to all who live in the village and problems which will in turn cost more money to rectify regarding infrastructure issues etc.

Qu.47 Regarding PEI, my concerns here are that the new junction that is to be created will be on a brow of a hill and this could potentially cause an accident hotspot. Further to an earlier response speeding in the village is a big issue so traffic calming measures need to be applied here to prevent danger to life by careless drivers!! Further to PE1 the drainage toward Jempsons has recently flooded where the drains were blocked causing the road to be impassable.

PE5 suggested the site has a boundary zone which is within 15 meters of the ancient woodland and as the government website states. This is to protect the root system of trees, soil and animal habitats. The woodland is home to numerous wildlife and building at PE5 would be extremely detrimental to the surrounding woodland and wildlife. Animals will be displaced no matter how good a measures are applied and whichever way you look at it all of this needs protecting. Even the trees and grass area are a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more building and concrete will do no good.

If PE5 is developed and trees are removed this will 100% have an impact on surface water/flooding as trees take in vast volumes of water through their root systems. Removing trees and green space will cause water displacement which will cause further flooding and surface water issues. Removing the green space will also mean that the parish council supplied grit bin would be potentially misplaced causing an issue for residents wanting to travel toward the main street in peasmarsh safely in icy or snowy conditions. This could cause potential injuries if something so basic is taken away from the community.

Developing PE5 will put local businesses out of work and this will displace them and finding other suitable units to rent local and relevant to them will become a challenge, Businesses there are made up of local connections and you can just up sticks and move a business without complications so the is not fair on the businesses that run out of The Maltings Business Park. I have concerns that developing PE5 will de-value my property which will impact me and my neighbours negatively. Homes are places we live but are also investments for our families futures. New houses are no way "affordable" these days without a catch like part ownership and what hasn't been stated is whether the development at PE5 is for freehold and to be sold to new first time buyers or housing associations.

The Car park at PE5 site is in constant use daily and taking this from the communities is wrong! It is used by the villages and by people from surrounding villages for the entertainment for their children using the play ground. The recreation ground is part of the village life with regular football matches and used daily throughout the year in all weathers, taking what off-road parking is there away from the people and community is not the right decision! Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a
suitable option!

To start off with I would like to stress that the meetings held regarding the planning overall have not been fair. The first initial meeting was held to discuss concerns with the Rother district planning officer who never showed and we later found they cancelled at short notice which was only made apparent on the day of the meeting so villagers couldn't even raise concerns or ask questions. This is no way a fair system and a poor show!

I would further like to add that the online submissions are not easy and complicated which further adds to putting people off stressing their concerns over these 'new developments' which only adds to an unfair system!

Qu.1 During the initial Local development plans, the proposed document did Not include the following: PE2 which is an extension next to PEI essentially. PE4 which was never included in the initial village development plans. PE5 which was never included in the initial village development plan. PE5 especially is ridiculous for so many reasons to follow but to find out the local businesses in the existing units that are rented out via contract had no clue that PE5 was a suggested site and is not fair! It would be very detrimental to the local businesses.



Qu. 5 The Drainage and sewage system within Peasmarsh in particular 'The Maltings' area are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year raw sewage has come up through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently which voids the report of the drainage being adequate and there not being a floodrisk. You only have to walk down the main street and almost all the drains are blocked up with debris, clearly this has not been looked
at from a development point of view. I have spoken with neighbours and found on numerous occasions they have had sewage back up into their homes through no fault of their own. Peasmarsh naturally has a high water table due to its location and this combined with surface water from heavy rainfall becomes an issue. If we take the last year in comparison, rainfall has been at one of its highest levels
and is only forecast to get worse in years to come due to climate change. There have been 2 occasions recently within the recreation grounds of potential sink holes. One was dug up and found an 'OLD' drain had collapsed causing a large hole to appear and the second which very recently (week commencing 9th march 2026) was addressed which further adds to drainage infrastructure being inadequate and questionable.

Qu. 5 The utilities within peasmarsh are outdated and although some efforts have been made to upgrade these for instance the broadband with gigaclear there are still properties without faster fiber broadband and have no options other than to keep old copper lines running, our house for one which gigaclear has told me they won't be returning to add a fixture for connectivity. This is due to access issues from an already installed infrastructure and telegraph pole system only 2 feet from our drive. The Broadband in particular was down in the village for 4 days due to a green junction box being flooded so again this is unreliable and costly.

Qu. 5 Parking in the Maltings area is a big problem with people blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on grass verges which then turn into mud baths and damaging the footpaths, and parking on the junctions opposite where PE5 is proposed. This is against the highway code and most of all dangerous. Photo attached. Adding further houses on the PE5 site would only make things worse adding a minimum further 6 vehicles if not double that being most households have 2 vehicles these days to an already over crowded road. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use daily so they can use the business units football recreation ground, play park and football pavilion. Taking this car park away leaves no where other than the already busy overflowing road to park for people to use the recreation ground and play area. I know for a fact people from outside the village like to use the play ground for their children to play in, in particular children from the village primary school who don't live in peasmarsh but neighbouring villages.

I'd also like to add that emergency services frequently come down The Maltings due to elderly residential housing, access is tight at the best of times which adding more houses to PE5 would cause a negative impact to existing residents and further causing potential dangers if access was blocked due to an influx of additional vehicles.

Outside the elderly residential housing is a dedicated bay for emergency vehicles however this is often used by people who have nowhere else to park. Photo attached.

The roads in The Maltings, Main Street and throughout peasmarsh are in an unacceptable state. Countless times I have reported damage to the roads, pot holes and raised iron works but each time the council says 'it's not a priority' adding further houses to The Maltings and surrounding area would only make this situation incredibly worse. The increasing volume of traffic driving up and down the roads is not going to be beneficial to anyone. Issues still to this date have not been fixed.

Report references: October 2024 - POT027514 - not fixed December 2025 - POT045086 - not fixed February 2026 - POT059434 - not fixed
All the above references are from East Sussex highways and they are all the same issue which again to this date nothing has been done. No one has even come out to look regarding the latest report so adding further vehicles to an already damaged road makes no sense!

To my understanding and after talking to other locals including parish council members the roads in The Maltings in particular were supposed to be resurfaced completely when they built the newer houses and elderly residential homes. This was never carried out although money was set aside to carry these works out by the council and in breach of planning?? This brings down the area and makes driving frustrating avoiding potholes daily.

Within the area of The Maltings lighting is on constantly throughout the night which is for one light pollution and secondly proves a hindrance when trying to get to sleep at night. Adding further houses at PE5 runs the risk of further light pollution and disruption.

Peasmarsh has no doctor's surgery. As residents of peasmarsh we have to travel to rye for our nearest surgery. Northiam surgery we were told that we are out of their catchment but either way this presents an issue of how people are to get to and from the doctors due to insufficient travel infrastructure. Bus services are not frequent and I have recently found out that the bus service from Northiam to Rye which would go through peasmarsh is due to have a reduced service. Adding houses to all the development sites in peasmarsh would cause a negative impact on travel.
Qu. 5 Question about the aesthetic of the houses at PE5 and whether they will be in keeping with the surrounding area. There currently are no flats like the proposed in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area.

PE5 would directly over look my garden and my neighbours gardens, This is an invasion to my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house that are newly built within the past 6 years or so. We can't have our front curtains in the lounge or bedroom open as a result of this due to privacy so adding further houses at PE5 would be an invasion of privacy. This also has an impact on how much natural light can enter our home which will affect anyone's Mental Wellbeing!

Recent knowledge found out by talking with parish council members is that the council recently sold off council owned homes in the maltings area due to no interest to develop or refurbish, yet new houses are being proposed at PE5 and PE4 when these houses that have now been sold could have been updated !?

Public transport is irregular and timetables a not easily workable to a daily routine for people who work but don't drive, new houses could present an issue for people getting to and from jobs, especially the younger generation who aren't driving due to age restrictions but want to work and have to travel. New houses and more people need more frequent and better public transport. If people cannot get access to better public transport then they may have to resort to using independent taxi services which cost a small fortune and become un economical due to the cost of living and inflation in reflection to how much different age groups can earn. This could have a massive impact on a person's Mental Wellbeing if they are being denied the simple right of travel to earn money which in this day and age you have to travel. Not everyone can work from home.

Qu. 6 School infrastructure - peasmarsh primary school is only small and has a limited number of places due to size and safe capacity. Adding an additional 143 new homes to the village is going to impact the school in good and bad ways. If the school cannot take children due to higher volumes what happens to the children that get refused?
Going to alternative schools in adjacent villages may not be an option if travel is a concern and how will the schools funding be affected regarding SENCO and support teachers. These factors need to be thought about and appropriate action needs to be addressed.

Access to the school is via a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic.

Pedestrian Crossings on the main street would need to be updated to zebra crossings to give right of way to pedestrians and traffic calming solutions would need to be implemented as speeding is a big concern in the village. We have had a friend that got clipped by a car while using the crossing - thankfully she sustained no injuries as it
was her bag that got struck. Adding 143 new homes will increase foot traffic and cause danger to life if these matters are not addressed and updated. The existing crossing is not safe as vehicles do not slow down as they now should according to the highway code that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross the road they have right
of way.

Qu.13 The amount of housing in proportion to the size of the village is completely out of context. Upon looking at all the suggested sites from PEI to PE5 the size of the development as a whole is almost doubling the size of the village and I must stress we are a village. Not a town and have no wish to become a town. Village life is part
of peasmarsh's history and cramming more and more houses into an already over stretched village is wrong. The volume of new houses in comparison to the size of the existing houses in the village is again wrong although I do not disagree with some development taking place. I must stress this amount is unfair and will cause years of
disruption to all who live in the village and problems which will in turn cost more money to rectify regarding infrastructure issues etc.

Qu.47 Regarding PEI, my concerns here are that the new junction that is to be created will be on a brow of a hill and this could potentially cause an accident hotspot. Further to an earlier response speeding in the village is a big issue so traffic calming measures need to be applied here to prevent danger to life by careless drivers!! Further to PE1 the drainage toward Jempsons has recently flooded where the drains were blocked causing the road to be impassable.

PE5 suggested the site has a boundary zone which is within 15 meters of the ancient woodland and as the government website states. This is to protect the root system of trees, soil and animal habitats. The woodland is home to numerous wildlife and building at PE5 would be extremely detrimental to the surrounding woodland and wildlife. Animals will be displaced no matter how good a measures are applied and whichever way you look at it all of this needs protecting. Even the trees and grass area are a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more building and concrete will do no good.

If PE5 is developed and trees are removed this will 100% have an impact on surface water/flooding as trees take in vast volumes of water through their root systems. Removing trees and green space will cause water displacement which will cause further flooding and surface water issues. Removing the green space will also mean that the parish council supplied grit bin would be potentially misplaced causing an issue for residents wanting to travel toward the main street in peasmarsh safely in icy or snowy conditions. This could cause potential injuries if something so basic is taken away from the community.

Developing PE5 will put local businesses out of work and this will displace them and finding other suitable units to rent local and relevant to them will become a challenge, Businesses there are made up of local connections and you can just up sticks and move a business without complications so the is not fair on the businesses that run out of The Maltings Business Park. I have concerns that developing PE5 will de-value my property which will impact me and my neighbours negatively. Homes are places we live but are also investments for our families futures. New houses are no way "affordable" these days without a catch like part ownership and what hasn't been stated is whether the development at PE5 is for freehold and to be sold to new first time buyers or housing associations.

The Car park at PE5 site is in constant use daily and taking this from the communities is wrong! It is used by the villages and by people from surrounding villages for the entertainment for their children using the play ground. The recreation ground is part of the village life with regular football matches and used daily throughout the year in all weathers, taking what off-road parking is there away from the people and community is not the right decision! Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a
suitable option!

To start off with I would like to stress that the meetings held regarding the planning overall have not been fair. The first initial meeting was held to discuss concerns with the Rother district planning officer who never showed and we later found they cancelled at short notice which was only made apparent on the day of the meeting so villagers couldn't even raise concerns or ask questions. This is no way a fair system and a poor show!

I would further like to add that the online submissions are not easy and complicated which further adds to putting people off stressing their concerns over these 'new developments' which only adds to an unfair system!

Qu.1 During the initial Local development plans, the proposed document did Not include the following: PE2 which is an extension next to PEI essentially. PE4 which was never included in the initial village development plans. PE5 which was never included in the initial village development plan. PE5 especially is ridiculous for so many reasons to follow but to find out the local businesses in the existing units that are rented out via contract had no clue that PE5 was a suggested site and is not fair! It would be very detrimental to the local businesses.



Qu. 5 The Drainage and sewage system within Peasmarsh in particular 'The Maltings' area are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year raw sewage has come up through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently which voids the report of the drainage being adequate and there not being a floodrisk. You only have to walk down the main street and almost all the drains are blocked up with debris, clearly this has not been looked
at from a development point of view. I have spoken with neighbours and found on numerous occasions they have had sewage back up into their homes through no fault of their own. Peasmarsh naturally has a high water table due to its location and this combined with surface water from heavy rainfall becomes an issue. If we take the last year in comparison, rainfall has been at one of its highest levels
and is only forecast to get worse in years to come due to climate change. There have been 2 occasions recently within the recreation grounds of potential sink holes. One was dug up and found an 'OLD' drain had collapsed causing a large hole to appear and the second which very recently (week commencing 9th march 2026) was addressed which further adds to drainage infrastructure being inadequate and questionable.

Qu. 5 The utilities within peasmarsh are outdated and although some efforts have been made to upgrade these for instance the broadband with gigaclear there are still properties without faster fiber broadband and have no options other than to keep old copper lines running, our house for one which gigaclear has told me they won't be returning to add a fixture for connectivity. This is due to access issues from an already installed infrastructure and telegraph pole system only 2 feet from our drive. The Broadband in particular was down in the village for 4 days due to a green junction box being flooded so again this is unreliable and costly.

Qu. 5 Parking in the Maltings area is a big problem with people blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on grass verges which then turn into mud baths and damaging the footpaths, and parking on the junctions opposite where PE5 is proposed. This is against the highway code and most of all dangerous. Photo attached. Adding further houses on the PE5 site would only make things worse adding a minimum further 6 vehicles if not double that being most households have 2 vehicles these days to an already over crowded road. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use daily so they can use the business units football recreation ground, play park and football pavilion. Taking this car park away leaves no where other than the already busy overflowing road to park for people to use the recreation ground and play area. I know for a fact people from outside the village like to use the play ground for their children to play in, in particular children from the village primary school who don't live in peasmarsh but neighbouring villages.

I'd also like to add that emergency services frequently come down The Maltings due to elderly residential housing, access is tight at the best of times which adding more houses to PE5 would cause a negative impact to existing residents and further causing potential dangers if access was blocked due to an influx of additional vehicles.

Outside the elderly residential housing is a dedicated bay for emergency vehicles however this is often used by people who have nowhere else to park. Photo attached.

The roads in The Maltings, Main Street and throughout peasmarsh are in an unacceptable state. Countless times I have reported damage to the roads, pot holes and raised iron works but each time the council says 'it's not a priority' adding further houses to The Maltings and surrounding area would only make this situation incredibly worse. The increasing volume of traffic driving up and down the roads is not going to be beneficial to anyone. Issues still to this date have not been fixed.

Report references: October 2024 - POT027514 - not fixed December 2025 - POT045086 - not fixed February 2026 - POT059434 - not fixed
All the above references are from East Sussex highways and they are all the same issue which again to this date nothing has been done. No one has even come out to look regarding the latest report so adding further vehicles to an already damaged road makes no sense!

To my understanding and after talking to other locals including parish council members the roads in The Maltings in particular were supposed to be resurfaced completely when they built the newer houses and elderly residential homes. This was never carried out although money was set aside to carry these works out by the council and in breach of planning?? This brings down the area and makes driving frustrating avoiding potholes daily.

Within the area of The Maltings lighting is on constantly throughout the night which is for one light pollution and secondly proves a hindrance when trying to get to sleep at night. Adding further houses at PE5 runs the risk of further light pollution and disruption.

Peasmarsh has no doctor's surgery. As residents of peasmarsh we have to travel to rye for our nearest surgery. Northiam surgery we were told that we are out of their catchment but either way this presents an issue of how people are to get to and from the doctors due to insufficient travel infrastructure. Bus services are not frequent and I have recently found out that the bus service from Northiam to Rye which would go through peasmarsh is due to have a reduced service. Adding houses to all the development sites in peasmarsh would cause a negative impact on travel.
Qu. 5 Question about the aesthetic of the houses at PE5 and whether they will be in keeping with the surrounding area. There currently are no flats like the proposed in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area.

PE5 would directly over look my garden and my neighbours gardens, This is an invasion to my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house that are newly built within the past 6 years or so. We can't have our front curtains in the lounge or bedroom open as a result of this due to privacy so adding further houses at PE5 would be an invasion of privacy. This also has an impact on how much natural light can enter our home which will affect anyone's Mental Wellbeing!

Recent knowledge found out by talking with parish council members is that the council recently sold off council owned homes in the maltings area due to no interest to develop or refurbish, yet new houses are being proposed at PE5 and PE4 when these houses that have now been sold could have been updated !?

Public transport is irregular and timetables a not easily workable to a daily routine for people who work but don't drive, new houses could present an issue for people getting to and from jobs, especially the younger generation who aren't driving due to age restrictions but want to work and have to travel. New houses and more people need more frequent and better public transport. If people cannot get access to better public transport then they may have to resort to using independent taxi services which cost a small fortune and become un economical due to the cost of living and inflation in reflection to how much different age groups can earn. This could have a massive impact on a person's Mental Wellbeing if they are being denied the simple right of travel to earn money which in this day and age you have to travel. Not everyone can work from home.

Qu. 6 School infrastructure - peasmarsh primary school is only small and has a limited number of places due to size and safe capacity. Adding an additional 143 new homes to the village is going to impact the school in good and bad ways. If the school cannot take children due to higher volumes what happens to the children that get refused?
Going to alternative schools in adjacent villages may not be an option if travel is a concern and how will the schools funding be affected regarding SENCO and support teachers. These factors need to be thought about and appropriate action needs to be addressed.

Access to the school is via a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic.

Pedestrian Crossings on the main street would need to be updated to zebra crossings to give right of way to pedestrians and traffic calming solutions would need to be implemented as speeding is a big concern in the village. We have had a friend that got clipped by a car while using the crossing - thankfully she sustained no injuries as it
was her bag that got struck. Adding 143 new homes will increase foot traffic and cause danger to life if these matters are not addressed and updated. The existing crossing is not safe as vehicles do not slow down as they now should according to the highway code that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross the road they have right
of way.

Qu.13 The amount of housing in proportion to the size of the village is completely out of context. Upon looking at all the suggested sites from PEI to PE5 the size of the development as a whole is almost doubling the size of the village and I must stress we are a village. Not a town and have no wish to become a town. Village life is part
of peasmarsh's history and cramming more and more houses into an already over stretched village is wrong. The volume of new houses in comparison to the size of the existing houses in the village is again wrong although I do not disagree with some development taking place. I must stress this amount is unfair and will cause years of
disruption to all who live in the village and problems which will in turn cost more money to rectify regarding infrastructure issues etc.

Qu.47 Regarding PEI, my concerns here are that the new junction that is to be created will be on a brow of a hill and this could potentially cause an accident hotspot. Further to an earlier response speeding in the village is a big issue so traffic calming measures need to be applied here to prevent danger to life by careless drivers!! Further to PE1 the drainage toward Jempsons has recently flooded where the drains were blocked causing the road to be impassable.

PE5 suggested the site has a boundary zone which is within 15 meters of the ancient woodland and as the government website states. This is to protect the root system of trees, soil and animal habitats. The woodland is home to numerous wildlife and building at PE5 would be extremely detrimental to the surrounding woodland and wildlife. Animals will be displaced no matter how good a measures are applied and whichever way you look at it all of this needs protecting. Even the trees and grass area are a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more building and concrete will do no good.

If PE5 is developed and trees are removed this will 100% have an impact on surface water/flooding as trees take in vast volumes of water through their root systems. Removing trees and green space will cause water displacement which will cause further flooding and surface water issues. Removing the green space will also mean that the parish council supplied grit bin would be potentially misplaced causing an issue for residents wanting to travel toward the main street in peasmarsh safely in icy or snowy conditions. This could cause potential injuries if something so basic is taken away from the community.

Developing PE5 will put local businesses out of work and this will displace them and finding other suitable units to rent local and relevant to them will become a challenge, Businesses there are made up of local connections and you can just up sticks and move a business without complications so the is not fair on the businesses that run out of The Maltings Business Park. I have concerns that developing PE5 will de-value my property which will impact me and my neighbours negatively. Homes are places we live but are also investments for our families futures. New houses are no way "affordable" these days without a catch like part ownership and what hasn't been stated is whether the development at PE5 is for freehold and to be sold to new first time buyers or housing associations.

The Car park at PE5 site is in constant use daily and taking this from the communities is wrong! It is used by the villages and by people from surrounding villages for the entertainment for their children using the play ground. The recreation ground is part of the village life with regular football matches and used daily throughout the year in all weathers, taking what off-road parking is there away from the people and community is not the right decision! Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a
suitable option!

1
The Strategic Spatial Objectives appear positive at first glance, but on closer inspection there are clear inconsistencies.

For instance, the aim to protect the natural environment and historic landscape is difficult to reconcile with the allocation of four out of five sites in Peasmarsh on greenfield land (PE1–PE4), including development on elevated ground at PE3 which would dominate the village.

Similarly, the objective of delivering housing aligned with local incomes does not reflect economic reality. Local wages err towards minimum wage, meaning even dual-income households are unlikely to afford homes at current market prices. With average house prices in Peasmarsh exceeding £400,000, the proposed “affordable” housing is unlikely to be genuinely accessible to younger residents.

The plan also promotes public transport, yet fails to acknowledge how limited, unreliable, and costly local services are in practice.

In addition, reference is made to neighbourhood planning, but the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan appears to have been largely overlooked.

Overall, while the objectives are well intentioned, there is a clear gap between what is promised and what is realistically deliverable. The frequent use of the term “sustainable” is not supported by the proposals that follow.


2
The housing targets do not appear to take account of the number of properties that are currently unused, including second homes, holiday lets, and investment properties.

There is little indication of how such housing stock might be brought back into use through policy or incentives. As a result, the emphasis seems to be on increasing supply through new development rather than making better use of existing homes.

5
(a) Transport and Movement

Public transport provision is extremely limited. Bus services are infrequent, often delayed, and poorly coordinated with onward connections. This makes travel by public transport impractical in many cases.

For example, journeys to key destinations such as The Conquest Hospital in Hastings can take several hours by bus, and costs are relatively high compared to local incomes.

Road conditions are also poor, with potholes and seasonal flooding creating hazards for drivers and cyclists. Pedestrian infrastructure is inconsistent, with uneven pavements and a lack of safe crossing points.

In practice, the current transport network encourages reliance on private cars, which runs counter to the plan’s sustainability objectives.

(b) Community and Cultural Facilities

Peasmarsh benefits from several valued community assets, including the Memorial Hall and recreation facilities. However, these are largely maintained through local initiative rather than district-level support.

This highlights the importance of local knowledge and community-led provision, which does not appear to be fully reflected in the plan.

(c) Education

Local secondary education options are limited. Rye College has faced challenges in recent years and lacks a sixth form, which affects its attractiveness to families.

While alternative schools exist, accessing them can be difficult due to transport constraints.

(d) Health and Social Care

There is no GP surgery within the village, and nearby practices have limited capacity. Access to healthcare therefore depends heavily on travel, which is both costly and time-consuming without a car.

(e) Flooding

Flooding is a significant issue in Peasmarsh, despite suggestions in the plan that it is not.

Surface water flooding and a high water table are well-known local concerns. The assessment appears to rely on incomplete or inappropriate data, potentially overlooking these risks.

(f) Utilities and Energy

There have been repeated failures in water and electricity supply in recent years, sometimes lasting for extended periods.

Wastewater and sewage infrastructure are also problematic, with frequent discharges into the River Rother.

Power outages have wider consequences, affecting communications, heating, and access to essential services. These issues raise serious questions about the resilience of existing infrastructure.

(g) Emergency and Security Services

Infrastructure failures can directly impact the ability to contact emergency services.

Flooding incidents already require intervention from the fire service, and rural crime remains a concern. Overall, emergency resilience is closely tied to the weaknesses identified in other infrastructure systems.

Summary

Across all areas, infrastructure appears under strain. Without significant investment and a coordinated strategy, additional development is likely to increase pressure on already limited resources.


6
The policy relating to strategic gaps appears internally inconsistent.

On the one hand, it emphasises the importance of maintaining separation between settlements. On the other, it allows for development within these gaps where sites are deemed suitable.

This creates uncertainty and suggests that boundaries could be adjusted to accommodate development, undermining the original purpose of the policy.


8
The scale of proposed development in Peasmarsh (143 houses) represents a substantial increase relative to the existing housing stock.

Describing this level of growth as “small scale” does not align with the reality of a roughly 25% expansion. This appears inconsistent with the aim of delivering sensitive development in rural areas.

13
The classification of Peasmarsh as a sustainable location is questionable.

Many key services (Shop, Post Office, Pharmacy, Petrol Station and ATM) are effectively provided by a single business (Jempson’s), which introduces considerable vulnerability. Should this provision change, bearing in mind bricks and mortar retail exists in an increasingly hostile environment, the village’s service base would be immediately wiped out.

This reliance does not represent a robust or resilient foundation for long-term planning.


15
The plan states that development should support local needs and maintain rural character.

However, the scale and nature of the proposed developments, particularly on greenfield land, would alter the character of the village.

There is also a risk that affordable housing commitments may not be delivered in practice, as viability considerations often lead to such elements being reduced or removed.


47
PE1 (Kitewood)

Development of this site would result in the loss of greenfield land and contribute to the gradual erosion of the rural setting of the village.

There are likely to be impacts on local road networks, including increased traffic movements and potential safety concerns at access points. Drainage and flood risk also require careful consideration, given existing local conditions.

PE2 (Pippins)

This site raises particular concerns regarding the delivery of affordable housing. Previous applications have suggested that such provision may not be viable, which calls into question whether policy objectives can be met in practice.

As with other sites, development would introduce additional traffic and infrastructure demands, while also affecting the character of the surrounding area.

PE3 (Tanyard Field)

This site is especially sensitive due to its elevated and visually prominent position. Development here would have a significant impact on the wider landscape and views into and out of the village.

There is also a history of planning resistance on this site, reflecting longstanding local concerns. Flood risk and drainage issues further complicate its suitability.

In addition, there is concern that development here would lead to further expansion beyond the currently proposed boundaries. The initial proposal of 15 affordable homes is a Trojan Horse to blight a greenfield site, make it a brownfield site and then build a second wave of development which (if consistent with previous proposals and planning applications) could be as much as 60 to 70 more houses.

PE4 (Orchard Way)

Similar to other allocations, development on this site would involve greenfield land and raise questions about environmental impact and infrastructure capacity.

Access arrangements, traffic generation, and drainage all require further scrutiny, particularly in light of existing constraints.

PE5 (Malthouse Business Park)

Although this site may differ in character from the others, development would still contribute to cumulative impacts across the village.

Consideration should be given to how it integrates with existing settlement patterns, as well as its implications for local services and infrastructure.

Overall Site Assessment.

When considered individually, each site presents a range of challenges. Taken together, their cumulative impact is likely to be significant.

This includes increased traffic, pressure on infrastructure, loss of rural character, and potential environmental effects.

There is also limited assurance that new housing will meet local needs, rather than contributing to second home ownership or external demand.

A more comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts and deliverability would strengthen the plan.


67
The removal of Policy SDO9 could enable rapid expansion in smaller settlements.

In the case of Peasmarsh, this could result in a significant increase in housing without corresponding improvements in infrastructure.

68
The Sustainability Appraisal appears to underestimate key issues, particularly flooding.

This raises concerns about the accuracy of the evidence base and whether local conditions have been properly understood (fluvial vs pluvial flooding).


69
The consultation process does not appear to have been fully inclusive.

The reliance on online materials may have excluded some residents, particularly those less comfortable with digital platforms. Limited outreach and a relatively short consultation period may also have reduced participation.

There is a risk that not all sections of the community have been adequately represented as a result.

While the plan sets out clear ambitions, there are significant concerns about how these will be achieved in practice.

In particular, there appears to be a disconnect between proposed development and the capacity of local infrastructure, as well as uncertainty over whether housing delivery will meet local needs.

Dear Sir,

With reference to the Draft Plan for Rother 2025-2042. I realise this is due to a government directive but do question the need for such large scale development especially on designated agricultural land when there are numerous brownfield sites available. There are already massive areas planned or under development, it is common knowledge that that because of government policy the housing market is at a standstill.

What infrastructure is planned in the way of Schools, Doctors, Dentists, Community centres, Shops etc to service and support these plans?

Where is the next phase of the Bexhill by-pass link to go?, as it currently ends on the Ninfield Road, the next link was meant to carry on across Ninfield Road cutting St. Marys Lane in two, skirting Bexhill cemetary and on towards the A259 at the Lamb Inn on the Pevensey Road - which would have alleviated traffic of all types currently having to negotiate the smaller roads in Bexhill before accessing the by-pass at King Offa Way.

The services such as water/drainage etc. are already inadequate with the lack of supply and ageing sewerage systems constantly breaking down. If all the services are already struggling to keep up with demand what is going to happen in the future?

Will the Highway department ever be able to cope with the added pressure of more traffic damaging our already potholed roads?

I look forward to hearing reasonable answers to the queries I have raised in this letter.

Yours faithfully