BX32 - I wish to object to the proposed housing development adjacent to my property. The scale and proximity of the scheme will significantly impact the privacy, light, and overall enjoyment of my home. The increased noise, traffic, and pressure on local infrastructure have not been adequately addressed, and the proposal does not demonstrate sufficient mitigation for these effects. The development also risks altering the character of the area, which is currently defined by low-density housing and green space. I am concerned that the plans do not provide appropriate environmental safeguards, particularly regarding drainage, wildlife disruption, and long-term landscape impact. I respectfully request that the application be reconsidered or revised to address these issues.

My neighbour and I were completely flabbergasted when we read the proposal for the Ninfield Lunsford road . 500 houses planned !!! You have to be out of your minds !
Apart from clogging up the already busy roads with traffic lights and diversions think about how this will pan out when completed !!
We already can’t get doctors appointments and where are the children from this vast estate going to attend school !
We were so happy moving to this peaceful place over ten years ago now . It seems to be changing through all recognition . Everyone I know around here is feeling very sad about the proposal .
Why are you contemplating this at all ? Is it the prospect of 500 new council taxes rolling in ? Is that the incentive ?

Please think again!

I have lived on Ninfield Road (TN39 5JJ) for 21 years and wish to formally raise serious concerns regarding the scale and suitability of the proposed development of approximately 500 dwellings.

Highway Safety and Traffic Impact

Ninfield Road is already a hazardous route. Although the speed limit in some parts is 30mph, this is frequently ignored. Over the 21 years I have lived here, there have been multiple road traffic accidents on or immediately adjacent to this stretch of road.

I recognise that official collision statistics typically only include incidents involving personal injury that were reported to police. However, many of the accidents I am aware of were non-injury collisions and may not appear in official datasets. Nonetheless, they occurred and reflect an underlying highway safety issue.

In fact, two accidents have already taken place this year along this stretch of Ninfield Road. These incidents demonstrate that safety concerns are ongoing and not historic.

The addition of approximately 500 homes would generate a substantial increase in daily vehicle movements, including peak-hour commuter traffic, school-related journeys and delivery vehicles. Increased turning movements, congestion, and construction traffic would further intensify use of an already dangerous road.

The repeated occurrence of damage-only collisions indicates existing highway pressures that may not be fully reflected in published statistics. Increasing traffic flows associated with this development would materially raise the likelihood of more serious collisions in the future.

Any Transport Assessment must therefore consider not only recorded injury data but also the lived experience of residents, speeding behaviour along this route, and the cumulative impact of further development on an already constrained road network.

Infrastructure Capacity

Bexhill’s infrastructure is already under significant strain.

• School capacity – In 2023 there were reportedly only 291 remaining primary and secondary school places across Bexhill. Since then, further housing growth has occurred without the delivery of a new primary school to support expansion. A development of this scale could generate a substantial number of additional school-aged children, placing further pressure on provision and potentially requiring families to travel outside the town.

• Healthcare services – GP surgeries are already difficult to access, with long waiting times and limited appointment availability. Hospital services serving the area are also under pressure. Additional population growth without clear, deliverable healthcare provision would exacerbate these issues.

• Cumulative growth – Significant development has already taken place to the west and north of Bexhill. The cumulative impact of this growth must be properly assessed. Development cannot continue without corresponding infrastructure upgrades.

Policy and Infrastructure Requirements

Planning policy requires development to be infrastructure-led. Any proposal must clearly demonstrate that roads, schools, healthcare services, drainage systems and utilities have the capacity to accommodate the scale of growth proposed.

If the site is to be considered for allocation or planning permission, it must be supported by robust, transparent evidence and secured infrastructure delivery — not vague or deferred mitigation.

Conclusion

In its current form and at the scale suggested, I am deeply concerned that this proposal would result in unacceptable highway safety risks and place further strain on already stretched local infrastructure.

I respectfully request that these concerns are formally recorded as part of the consultation process and fully addressed before any planning application is progressed.

Comments for area BX39
This area has been a camp site for many years; planning has been refused for expansion of few log cabins as this would impact the natural habitat, access issues etc. how is it NOW possible to have this area in your plan for hundreds of houses!
The Ninfield road is becoming dangerous due to increased traffic and already there has been serious incidents through Lunsford Cross, more houses on this stretch of road would greatly increase the risk of accidents. This satellite area with so many houses would require the use of cars, again an environment issue, more busses on the Ninfield road is not the answer!
The plan lists green space for new residents! what about the existing residents who have this green space already which you are now planning to build on and take this away from us and also drive natural habitat away!

The proposed site allocations in Bexhill provide clear direction for housing, employment, and mixed-use development, in line with the Development Strategy. The indicative capacities are appropriate and reflect extant permissions and sustainability considerations. The allocation policies recognise the need for supporting infrastructure, including green/blue spaces, transport improvements, and connectivity. Importantly, it should be noted that Primary Care infrastructure must be considered alongside residential growth to ensure that healthcare provision meets the needs of the expanding population. The plan demonstrates a strong evidence base, drawing on the HELAA, Density Study, and Sustainability Appraisal, providing confidence that allocations are deliverable and sustainable while protecting Bexhill’s urban character.

BX15
Is it necessary to take this green land for another 35 homes?
BX14 the adjoining development already approved for 210 homes. Despite vast numbers of objections being raised because of, amongst other issues, the totally unsuitable access roads to this site. There is no public transport to this area. Another 35 dwellings will not improve this situation.
Is BX15 already a “done deal”? Planning application for BX14 on RDC website clearly shows an access road from BX14 to BX15.
Given the proven link and significant importance of nature to good mental health and wellbeing could consideration be given to allowing this piece of land to become part of Broadoak Park? The benefits to the all the residents of Bexhill, cannot be understated.
Once this land is developed it is gone forever, together with all the benefits to the people who might otherwise be able to enjoy this green space.

I would disagree that there will be adequate on-street parking for Cooden Beach station if the car park at The Gorses is removed. The car park is frequently full and, as a result, on-street parking extends up The Gorses and Cooden Sea Road. Parking on Cooden Sea Road near the station already causes the road to become effectively one-way, thereby causing congestion of that road. Congestion in Bexhill as a whole will become worse as housing increases. It makes no sense to drive people away from using the train to travel along the coast (thereby increasing congestion on the A259) by making it impossible to park near stations.

With reference to BX8; I strongly object to this planning application as it would disrupt a well-used public right of way providing safe and direct access to King Offa Primary School. This route is relied upon daily by children, parents, and residents, offering a traffic-free pathway that promotes safety, health, and community cohesion. Diverting or obstructing it would force families onto busier roads, increasing risk and congestion. The proposal fails to demonstrate adequate mitigation or meaningful consultation regarding the loss of this essential pedestrian link.

Furthermore, the Rother 2042 strategy is steadily eroding our countryside. We lack the roads, schools, healthcare capacity, public services and utilities to support the proposed 8,000 homes without serious strain.

Bexhill is already struggling to cope with current levels of development, and essential infrastructure is not keeping pace with demand. There are ongoing issues with water supply, as demonstrated by repeated hosepipe bans. Local schools are oversubscribed, and access to GP and dental services is extremely limited. Roads are in poor condition, and traffic congestion is worsening.

The town requires significant investment in infrastructure and public services before any further large-scale housing is approved. Adding more homes without this support will place unacceptable pressure on residents and services.

I am particularly concerned about the proposal for approximately 80 homes in the BX8 area, situated between two local schools. This will significantly increase traffic at peak times and create serious safety risks for children, parents, and residents. The land in this area is already waterlogged, raising concerns about drainage, flooding, and long-term sustainability.

In addition, the alleyway behind King Offa is an important route for people commuting to and from school. Its potential removal will inconvenience many residents and may force pedestrians onto already busy roads, further increasing safety risks.

The proposed development of around 200 homes in the BX5 area is also excessive for such a small location. This scale of development will place further strain on limited infrastructure and community resources.

Emergency services are already under pressure and may not be able to respond effectively with such a significant increase in population. This raises serious concerns about public safety and wellbeing.

In summary, these proposals fail to adequately consider the existing pressures on Bexhill’s infrastructure, environment, and services. The town needs support, investment, and improvement of current facilities before further housing is considered.
I respectfully urge the council to reconsider these developments and to prioritise the long-term health, safety, and sustainability of our community.

BX38 is a natural progression of North Bexhill and is inline with the already passed development of BX31. There is good safe road access onto the main Ninfield Road and an already well established regular public transport network not only connecting to Bexhill but also Hailsham, Eastbourne and connecting villages.
This being a small allocation will not have an adverse effect on local infrastructure but will contribute to the shortfall in Rother's housing target which is within policy guidelines.
I strongly believe that BX38 will add to the housing shortfall with minimum impact and so should be allocated for development.

BX38
There is an urgent need for affordable housing in this and the surrounding areas. This being a small allocation will not have any adverse effect on local infrastructure but will contribute to the shortfall in Rother's housing target. There is existing well established regular public transport links to surrounding areas.

As a lifetime resident of Bexhill and a former land owner, I take an interest in the future of the town and surrounding area. I have briefly studied the proposed housing allocations and would like to register my support for allocation BX38. This area is not excessively large and would represent a natural progression of the already approved North Bexhill Development without adversely impacting existing local infrastructure. It would also contribute to the shortfall in Rother's housing target and, I feel, should be allocated for development.

BX38 is a natural extension of North Bexhill and follows on from the approved development along Haven Brook Avenue. The site has safe access onto Ninfield Road and is already well served by regular public transport, with links to Bexhill, Hailsham, Eastbourne and nearby villages.

Because this is a small development, it would not put pressure on local services or infrastructure. It would, however, help reduce Rother’s housing shortfall in line with planning policy. For these reasons, BX38 would provide new homes with minimal impact and should be allocated for development.

I object to the development of land west of Ninfield Road , at Lunsford Cross, Bexhill. It contravenes RDC’s stated aim of preserving the attractive countryside. When so much derelict vacant brownfield sites , redundant offices , railway sidings and empty shops crying out for residential usage , why concrete over prime agricultural land ? We need green wildlife corridors in this crowded island of ours. The land in Catesby Estates monstrous ambitions is currently rich in wildlife . I have recorded buzzards nesting in the adjoining woods hunting in the fields. There are Tawny Owls and Foxes taking refuge in this rural paradise. Wildlife needs woodland and green fields. With global warming , we need to preserve and expand our green fields and trees to offset the damage mankind is doing to the planet. Please do not allow this destructive and reckless scheme to proceed.

With regard to BEX39 and adjoining parcels, none of this is developable without alterations to the Ninfield Road. It is a tiny road with no street lighting and narrow walkays. It is impossible to cross at rush hour and getting out of Thorne Crescent is a nightmare. I am not a NIMBY but there is a reason this land is undeveloped. You have alrady granted permission for the Gateway and 20+ enterprise units and want to add 500 houses? This land is nowhere near shops or amenities so people will get in their cars to Tesco in St Leonards. Likewise parents dropping off children at school. You have done nothing with this road in the 30 years I have known it but added a link road to Hastings, plus enterprise units and now this. Build a new road, divert traffic from the Ninfield Rd and you can build your houses.

I support BX38

Site BX15 – land to north of Broad Oak Lane

Known as “Queen Elizabeth II field”

(Land registry SX151421)
(I can provide a copy of the register dated 21st February 2026)

Firstly, this land is not owned by Rother District Council
And the owner is Mayo Land Company Ltd

I strongly OBJECT to this land being included in the plan.

This is land does not have any access save from a yet to be built 210 homes on site north, being to the west of Fyatts Way.

This land is registered with “Fields in Trust” which was agreed by Rother District Council on 10th July 2013 under seal No 9861.

“The Council DEDICATES the property in celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as a public open space”

( I can supply a copy of this deed)

Whilst I realise that we need homes BUT this is not a place to build.

I strongly object to the proposed new development in our community at the site of land west of Ninfield Road, Lunsford Cross, Bexhill. While I understand the need for additional housing, this particular site raises serious concerns about infrastructure, environment, and neighbourhood character. Adding hundreds of new residents will significantly increase traffic & noise pollution.
Furthermore, the development would place strain on essential services, including water supply, sewage systems, healthcare facilities, schools and public transportation. The loss of green space and mature trees is also deeply troubling, as this area supports a great deal of local wildlife and contributes to flood mitigation and air quality.
Finally, the scale of the project is out of keeping with the existing character of the neighbourhood. I strongly urge the planning authority to reconsider developing this site.

In regards to Reference number BX38 I think that having a housing department project in the area will be beneficial to all concerned,there is a good bus route linked to Hailsham and Bexhill and I believe that the proposed site will not affect the surrounding areas.As a long time citizen of Bexhill,I fully support the application

I wish to comment on the Local plan proposed for 2025 to 2042 in particular reference to all sites BX20 to BX28. These sites will generate a large volume of traffic which must exit on to the A259. For many years a bypass has been spoken about but with no result.

The stretch of the A259 between Little Common and Pevensey has seen several significant collisions in the past five years. In November 2024 the road was twice closed for a day at Little Common and Pevensey roundabouts. There are no suitable escape routes. The severity of these collisions caused mayhem to the local area. There are multiple serious collisions per year and a large number of slight injury collisions, often at junctions or during peak hours. Collisions occurred due to high impact speed, road geometry and limited escape space. All collisions resulted in traffic chaos along with Police attendance, ambulance attendance and road traffic workers attending the scene causing temporary closures.

Live traffic data shows slow moving queues , full closures following collisions, congestion around junctions and narrow sections. These conditions increase the likelihood of rear end and side impact collisions.

For these reasons unless there are significant road widening and other safety proposals put in place, in my opinion, the planning proposals for all sites between BX20 and BX28 will fail and are just pie in the sky to satisfy Head Government targets.

Ideally a bypass is required.

Other contributors better placed than I will note that complete upgrading of the water supply is required and the requirement of upgrading the limited size of the sewage connections. Also what of school places, Doctor and Hospital services and what are all these new occupants to do for work? There is no industry here. It is a poor area. No work will increase pressure on the Local Authority in respect of benefit claims and both child and adult services. I could go on. This local plan is divorced from reality.

Q1
Strategic Spatial Objective 6
6.There is no overall strategy specified as to how economic growth in Rother is to be achieved. This will be essential to create demand for housing and services from the younger strata of the population otherwise Rother will continue to be a retirees destination as is much of the UK south coast.
Q2
Housing Target
3.4 The target of 8,427 over 17 year is unrealistic. The proposed sites already tend to occupy the only land within the local development area available to the north and west of Bexhill since development to the east has been ruled out and the southern coastal boundary precludes development. The timescale is significant and the possible effects of climate warming and sea rises that my well cause changes that might well prevent development in some area within this timescale. Consequently, a shorter time horizon of 5-10 years would be more sensible. Furthermore, all new dwellings should have energy saving measures such as high grade insulation, roof mounted solar panels (necessitating orientation of roofs to allow adequate solar insolation capture) and grey water recycling and storage tanks inbuilt.
Q3
Town Centre Usage
3.3. While possible uses are identified there is no mention or recognition of the need for adequate town centre parking to cope with increased footfall and, presumably, economic activity.
Q5
Infrastructure
7. Not only a focus on but early implementation of infrastructure will be essential for the Road Network, Rail access, and especially adequate parking at Stations. Adequate waste water disposal and fresh water provision must be in place prior to the planned occupancy of any new housing development.
Q10
Vision and Development Strategy for Bexhill
While this strategy recognises the limitations of the A259 and Little Common Roundabout it does not mention that the A259 is an already capacity limited highway ( regular traffic queues back to the Custom Café and beyond) and that all connections to this highway are really only country lanes that have very limited capability to handle more traffic. Mention is made of a possible bypass that would clearly relieve the problems that now exist on the A259 but no timeframe is proposed and all of the new development proposed in West Bexhill will only add to the already heavy traffic.

Q17
West Bexhill Site Allocations
BX18
This appears to identify most of the essential infrastructure upgrades essential if the West Bexhill area is to be further developed. However, it is critical that most of these improvements are achieved before any new house building commences.
BX19 This proposal is to reduce parking space and increase housing and is admitted to be contrary to national planning policy. I object strongly to this site.
BX20
This site has been subject to planning action for nearly 10 years. It still offers dangerous access onto the A259, and Spindlewood Drive as well as drainage problems threatening the Pevensey Levels with its identified environmental sensitivities. There is no adequate sewerage capacity available that the site could be connected to. I object most strongly to this site.
BX21
This site would add to the issues raised by BX20 and is unsuitable for development. I object to this proposal.
BX22
This proposal creates even more problems requiring solution as does BX20 and BX21. Such a large proposed development would create and even bigger threat to the Pevensey Levels as well as destroying the views towards the sea. There is also no access to the A259. I object to this policy.
BX23
Yet another very sensitive site with no direct access to the main road. Although cycle paths are proposed there is no plan or obvious way to extend these on a route following the A259. There is no access to a sewerage system of adequate capacity. I object to this site.
BX24
Another land locked site with no access. Requires use to proposed site BX23. I object to this site.
BX25
This site is necessary to develop medical facilities for Little Common and approved sites. It should have been developed several years ago. This is an example of infrastructure not being provided in an adequate timescale. I support this site.
BX26
This land locked site has too many constraints that must be overcome. I object to this site.
BX27
Apart from the obvious lack of infrastructure access to the A259 is on a hill. Such a large proposed development would add significant extra traffic onto the A259 for which there are no proposals to alleviate. I object to this site.
BX28
This site is in a very sensitive environmental location and isolated from the rest of Bexhill. The access onto the A259 is difficult and together with the other sites proposed to the east will provide major ongoing hazards to traffic on the main road. I object to this site.

Q1
Strategic Spatial Objective 6
6.There is no overall strategy specified as to how economic growth in Rother is to be achieved. This will be essential to create demand for housing and services from the younger strata of the population otherwise Rother will continue to be a retirees destination as is much of the UK south coast.
Q2
Housing Target
3.4 The target of 8,427 over 17 year is unrealistic. The proposed sites already tend to occupy the only land within the local development area available to the north and west of Bexhill since development to the east has been ruled out and the southern coastal boundary precludes development. The timescale is significant and the possible effects of climate warming and sea rises that my well cause changes that might well prevent development in some area within this timescale. Consequently, a shorter time horizon of 5-10 years would be more sensible. Furthermore, all new dwellings should have energy saving measures such as high grade insulation, roof mounted solar panels (necessitating orientation of roofs to allow adequate solar insolation capture) and grey water recycling and storage tanks inbuilt.
Q3
Town Centre Usage
3.3. While possible uses are identified there is no mention or recognition of the need for adequate town centre parking to cope with increased footfall and, presumably, economic activity.
Q5
Infrastructure
7. Not only a focus on but early implementation of infrastructure will be essential for the Road Network, Rail access, and especially adequate parking at Stations. Adequate waste water disposal and fresh water provision must be in place prior to the planned occupancy of any new housing development.
Q10
Vision and Development Strategy for Bexhill
While this strategy recognises the limitations of the A259 and Little Common Roundabout it does not mention that the A259 is an already capacity limited highway ( regular traffic queues back to the Custom Café and beyond) and that all connections to this highway are really only country lanes that have very limited capability to handle more traffic. Mention is made of a possible bypass that would clearly relieve the problems that now exist on the A259 but no timeframe is proposed and all of the new development proposed in West Bexhill will only add to the already heavy traffic.

Q17
West Bexhill Site Allocations
BX18
This appears to identify most of the essential infrastructure upgrades essential if the West Bexhill area is to be further developed. However, it is critical that most of these improvements are achieved before any new house building commences.
BX19 This proposal is to reduce parking space and increase housing and is admitted to be contrary to national planning policy. I object strongly to this site.
BX20
This site has been subject to planning action for nearly 10 years. It still offers dangerous access onto the A259, and Spindlewood Drive as well as drainage problems threatening the Pevensey Levels with its identified environmental sensitivities. There is no adequate sewerage capacity available that the site could be connected to. I object most strongly to this site.
BX21
This site would add to the issues raised by BX20 and is unsuitable for development. I object to this proposal.
BX22
This proposal creates even more problems requiring solution as does BX20 and BX21. Such a large proposed development would create and even bigger threat to the Pevensey Levels as well as destroying the views towards the sea. There is also no access to the A259. I object to this policy.
BX23
Yet another very sensitive site with no direct access to the main road. Although cycle paths are proposed there is no plan or obvious way to extend these on a route following the A259. There is no access to a sewerage system of adequate capacity. I object to this site.
BX24
Another land locked site with no access. Requires use to proposed site BX23. I object to this site.
BX25
This site is necessary to develop medical facilities for Little Common and approved sites. It should have been developed several years ago. This is an example of infrastructure not being provided in an adequate timescale. I support this site.
BX26
This land locked site has too many constraints that must be overcome. I object to this site.
BX27
Apart from the obvious lack of infrastructure access to the A259 is on a hill. Such a large proposed development would add significant extra traffic onto the A259 for which there are no proposals to alleviate. I object to this site.
BX28
This site is in a very sensitive environmental location and isolated from the rest of Bexhill. The access onto the A259 is difficult and together with the other sites proposed to the east will provide major ongoing hazards to traffic on the main road. I object to this site.

I live in Meads Road and we dont have water capacity or sewerage capacity for lots of new houses .

Please see attached for full representation:

- Full representation on Draft Rother District Local Plan 2025-2042 Consultation (including underlined text and hyperlinks that do not appear in text copied out below)
- Supporting document: Southern Water input to Rother District Council’s 2026 IDP review
- Supporting document: IDP feedback provided for the Regulation 18 consultation deadline 23rd July 2024

Q5 We attach our separate IDP response to Rother as part of our feedback to this Regulation 18 consultation on the Local Plan, requesting update of the IDP in accord with the information and explanations provided. This also includes our feedback from the previous 2024 Regulation 18 consultation, in addition to a full explanation of how Southern Water plans investment for adopted local plans. Included within this explanation are our key AMP8 (2025-2030) investment plans for the Rother district. Some plans extend into AMP9, but for the reasons we explain in our IDP response, most AMP9 schemes are not known at this time.

There is considerable investment planned for the district in this 2025-2030 AMP8 period, supported by a range of technical disciplines. This represents the latest investment information and therefore supersedes the DWMP content referred to (as this DWMP work was concluded in 2023).

Q8 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

Q9 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage. This will be particularly important in areas where higher housing densities are proposed.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring all development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

Q10 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage. This will be particularly important in areas where higher housing densities are proposed.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring all development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

Q17 Q17 - all BX sites.

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording to all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to critical assets running beneath sites.”

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that a number of the new/changed sites (BX6, BX7, BX22, 23, 24, 27, 28, BX31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and BX41) may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and all those we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site BX9 and may require easements or diversion. For this site, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

Q19 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage. This will be particularly important in areas where higher housing densities are proposed.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring all development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

26 CR1 to CR3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

However, we note that for site CR2 in particular, there is no wording in the site allocation policy to address the site’s proximity to an operational wastewater treatment works. In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to site CR2 is within 500m of Battle wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the additional wording –
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

28 GU1 & GU2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for site GU2 at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –

“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Southern Water infrastructure crosses GU2 and may require easements or diversion.”

30 GU4 & 5

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –

“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site GU5 and may require easements or diversion. For GU5, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

31 GU6

Southern Water has identified no constraints for this site at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

32 IK1&2

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site IK1 and may require easements or diversion. For IK1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

34 WS1 WS2, WS3 WS4 WS5

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that sites WS2 and WS3 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site WS3 and may require easements or diversion. For WS3, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

36 BT1 to BT11 (BT3, BT4, BT5, BT6)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to this site is within 500m of Battle wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the additional wording – The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that sites BT1, BT2, BT7, BT9, BT10 and BT11 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:
Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site BT11 and may require easements or diversion. For BT11, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

38 CT1 CT2 CT3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure may cross sites CT2 and CT3 and may require easements or diversion. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

39 NE1 & 2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

40 SD10 SD11 (SD1 to SD9)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to site SD11 (and as previously advised the for the existing site allocation SD7) is within 500m of Sedlescombe wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the following additional wording in these policies–
The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.

42 BC1 (BC2) BC3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site BC3 and may require easements or diversion. For BC3, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

43 (BR1) BR2 BR3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

44 CM1 to CM3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

45 (ID1) ID2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site ID2 and may require easements or diversion. For ID2, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

46 NR1 and NR2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for this site (NR2) at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

Additional policy wording is needed for each site to address it’s proximity to operational wastewater treatment works. The proposed boundary of each site is within 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works (Mill Corner Northiam WTW, and Quickbourne Lane Northiam WTW) and we therefore request the additional wording for each site policy –
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site NR2 and may require easements or diversion. For NR2, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

47 PE1, 2 & 3 (PE4 & PE5)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

49 (RY1 to RY1, RY7&8) RY5, RY6 & RY9

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that sites RY5 and RY9 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses sites RY5, RY6 and RY9 and may require easements or diversion. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

50 RH1

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

53 BW1 to 4

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site BW1 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For this site, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Please note that Southern Water wastewater sewers cross all BW sites (BW1 to 4) and may require easements or diversion (so please note that whilst we agree that consultation with Southern Water will be required, it may not be necessary for the developer to deliver a package treatment plant as currently stated in part Xi of the policy. Were the developer to want to deliver such plant they will first need to consult with the Environment Agency). For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording:
Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

54 BWC1 and 2

Southern Water has identified no constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

55 EC1 to 3

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site EC1 and may require easements or diversion. For EC1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

56 (HG1&2) HG3 & 4

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site HG4 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For this site, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:
Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site HG3 and may require easements or diversion. For HG3, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording:
Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

57 RB1, RB3, RB4 (RB2, RB5) to RB6a & RB6b

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to sites R3 and R4 (and also as will have been previously advised the boundary to existing site allocation RB2) are all within 500m of Robertsbridge wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the following additional wording for these policies–
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses sites RB3, and RB5 and may require easements or diversion. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

58 SC1 & 2

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site SC1 and may require easements or diversion. For SC1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

59 FW1 to FW3

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site FW2 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site FW2 and may require easements or diversion. For FW2, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

60 TC1 (or 2)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site TC1 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water infrastructure also crosses site TC1 and may require easements or diversion. For TC1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

62 SG1 or 2

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundaries to each site are within 500m of Stonegate wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the following additional wording for these policies–
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Southern Water infrastructure crosses these sites and may require easements or diversion. For these sites please therefore also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

Q64 GYP1 to GYP6

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that some of the GYP sites are proposed within 500m of operational wastewater treatment works. For example, the boundary to site GYP6 is within 500m of Robertsbridge WTW.

We therefore request Rother consult us on planning applications for all sites so that we can share the results of more detailed checks with the authority. Southern Water also request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

And for each site proposed within 500m of operational wastewater treatment works (eg GYP6) please include the following additional wording;
“The layout of ‘sensitive residences’ for any site allocation within 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Q69 Any other issues or comments?

All site allocations should be proposed in locations where utilities can provide for the forecasted needs of the development without prejudicing existing or future utility provision necessary to support growth. Southern Water therefore requests the following additional policy wording in the Regulation 19 draft of the Local Plan:
The utility network should be protected and development proposals that would compromise existing utilities infrastructure, or encroach on future connections for utilities, will be refused. Opportunities should be sought to safeguard the provision of utilities wherever possible.

Parking in the town is already at a minimum and we can not afford to lose any more , The site at Wainwright road is important to the local community and gives access to visit and use the shops at the town without it we will lose even more businesses in the town .

BX15 This site is adjacent to an existing new development 210 dwellings and to add a further 35 is nothing but madness considering there is no public transport nearby and the roads are not suitable for the increase in traffic including roads without a pavement and limited street lighting. I am lead to believe that the council does not actually own this land as specified and is owned by a local development company so is this a fait accompli? Perhaps you are not bothered by what local residents think, this is a consultation in name only and no consideration is given to any objections raised.

The overall amount of allocated space for housing v one very small area for business.
What are all these new residencies going to do? And where are they coming from?
As the deputy prime minister said - "We have reinstated mandatory housing targets so more homes are built in the right places alongside the necessary infrastructure and have been clear that this will not come at the expense of the environment"
This plan will kill the environment, and as for infostructure, schools, doctors, transport, etc etc.... just not enough for this amount of expansion.

BX14 - far too big a development on beautiful fields, which will be lost for ever - 210 houses.
there's hardly any transport for the students going to school - well there's no space in the local schools anyway, neighbouring towns I expect! A walk to the station, thats at least 20 - 30 minutes. And gosh the architecture is so ugly, can we not expect in the 21century to design a home which has some aspiration. These look like the 1940, and they were built to last these won't. This should never have been given provisional planning.
BX15 - this is next to the 210 houses, making an even bigger estate with all its added problems.
This will be disastrous, for the environment and our wellbeing. The number of cars coming and going through one entrance - Fryatts Way.

I wish to object to area BX39 being considered in the draft plan. This would be taking a huge leap into the surrounding landscape. It would be devastating for the wildlife and the loss of habitat. There is know way this green space could be enhanced by building 500 houses. This site would out on a limb as there is know infrastructure, with Ninfield Road struggling to cope with the traffic flow as it is. Up until the present owner of the campsite took over this was a fantastic asset to Bexhill , constantly receiving 5 star reviews and most often fully booked. Supporting local pubs, restaurants cafes etc. many area’s of the country are looking to accommodate camping and motorhomes not destroy what they already have. Add to that the severe lack of tourist accommodation in Bexhill. Please consider the people who already live and don’t destroy this area.

I would suggest that Central Bexhill needs more parking not less. The loss of Wainwright Road would be devastating, to a lot of business workers and owners as well as customers.