Site SD11: Object
I agree with all the objections raised by the Parish Council plus Brede Lane is also congested and unsuitable for present traffic. The school and surgery are major pinch points. An estate of 38 dwellings inappropriate for our village. I question the provision for extra parking requirements for new house occup.

Site SD10: Object
I agree with Parish Council objections plus my comment on Brede Lane. I also question parking provision.

Site SD11: Object
1) Where is the evidence of need?
2) Detached from the settlement/in conflict with NPPF para 189.
3) I question how realistic it is of achieving safe highway visibility splays
4) Section 106 agreement constraints.

Site SD10: Object
1) Harm to HWNL
2) Site unsuitable - long standing evidence
3) Where is the housing need
4) Access/highway safety concerns
5) Flood risk!!
6) Environmental impact assessment
7) Water pressure?

Site SD11: Object
Lack of parking
On a small country lane that is already a rat run and too busy

Site SD10: Object
Lack of parking
On a small country lane that is already a rat run and too busy
The problem is too many cars + too busy through the village

Site SD11: Object
Too many proposed dwellings. Parking problems already on East View Terrance. Road width! Infrastructure? School aready full capactiy. Drs surgery likewise. We want to stay a village we don't want to be a town!! Would site SD10+SD11

Site SD10: Object
Road structure difficult access. Area of outstanding natural beauty. Needs to be compatible with existing housing. Vehicles (additional) will have to be provided for. Access and parking. Again infrastructure. School? Drs Surgery. We want to stay a village. We don't want to be a town!!

Site SD11: Object
- This site has never been on Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan
- Sedlescombe has already over exceeded it's allocated housing allocation.
- The development will have an impact on wildlife biodiversity.
This development will ruin the impact of the area around Brede Lane, Hurst Lane & East View Terrace and its close community.
- The local road network cannot handle the increased traffic flow along with increased traffic noise & pollution. The increased cars that are already parking on Brede Lane have an impact on the emergency service causing delays & cost lives.
- There is a lack of facilities in the village as well as at the local GP surgery & at the local school.
- Due to climate change we are getting more extreme rainfall therefore taking away green fields which are effective at soaking up rain acting as natural sponges which absorb water into the ground and reduce runoff will help prevent flooding especially as East View is in a valley.
- As Sedlescombe has been built on top of springs therefore when it rains excess water causes flooding along with increased water pressure which causes damage to the infrastructure and causes pot holes & sinkholes.
- This land is attached to Brede Barn Farm therefore not legally available for development.

Site SD10: Object
- This site has never been on the neighbourhood plan.
- Sedlescombe has already over exceed its allocated housing allocation
- The local road network cannot handle the increased traffic flow.
- This area is recognised & unresolved low water pressure area.
- There is lack of facilities in the village as well as at the local GP surgery & at the local school.

Question 40:40
Site SD10
Object
This site has already been identified as unsuitable.
There is no demonstrable housing need in Sedlescombe.
It would add to the already severe environmental impacts on the whole Rother District area.
Site SD 11
Object
Again there is no demonstrable housing need in Sedlescombe.
The land currently is not legally available for development .
It would again add to already severe environmental impacts on the whole Rother District area.

The Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan was intended as a means of allowing the local Parish Council to agree a local development plan for the village. We were told that if this was not done a plan would be imposed by the District Council. Here in Sedlescombe the Parish Council worked hard and efficiently to produce an approved plan.
Since then Rother District Council have imposed a site for 21 dwellings and now a further two sites of 53 dwellings. This does not fit well with the concept of local democracy and hopefully the ballot box will deliver the correct verdict.
The environmental impact is also severe in particular to the water resources situation in the South East . Despite it's current problems South East Water has almost reached the limit of it's water resource. There is talk of another reservoir that might be built but this will likely only stabilize the existing situation. To find more resource you are having to look at a national water grid or desalination plants, both of which are eye wateringly expensive. Therefore no overall housing expansion in the Rother District area must be the policy.
David Box

Question 40:40
Site SD10
Object
This site has already been identified as unsuitable.
There is no demonstrable housing need in Sedlescombe.
It would add to the already severe environmental impacts on the whole Rother District area.
Site SD 11
Object
Again there is no demonstrable housing need in Sedlescombe.
The land currently is not legally available for development .
It would again add to already severe environmental impacts on the whole Rother District area.

The Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan was intended as a means of allowing the local Parish Council to agree a local development plan for the village. We were told that if this was not done a plan would be imposed by the District Council. Here in Sedlescombe the Parish Council worked hard and efficiently to produce an approved plan.
Since then Rother District Council have imposed a site for 21 dwellings and now a further two sites of 53 dwellings. This does not fit well with the concept of local democracy and hopefully the ballot box will deliver the correct verdict.
The environmental impact is also severe in particular to the water resources situation in the South East . Despite it's current problems South East Water has almost reached the limit of it's water resource. There is talk of another reservoir that might be built but this will likely only stabilize the existing situation. To find more resource you are having to look at a national water grid or desalination plants, both of which are eye wateringly expensive. Therefore no overall housing expansion in the Rother District area must be the policy.
David Box

Site SD11: Object
Access and highway safety is unresolved – the impact could potentially be damaging for the village.

Site SD10: Object
Access and highway safety is unresolved. The impact to Gorseland would be huge - a detrimental cost to the residents from the developers taking control for part of the residents land - further sites have already been identified as suitable and planning authorised but no developers have ever taken place. I do not believe the developer or council has demonstrated a reasonable need to develop 15 properties or what positive impact this would have on Gorselands or the village. The impact on local resources such as Dr's surgery and school. The impact this is already having on residents trying to sell their property - the amount of time this taking is unacceptable and residents livelihood an mental health is already being greatly impacted. Currently the number of houses proposed is 15 however the plans show only 11. The planning website is not accurately updated.

Site SD11: Object
The road is already congested at different times of day without adding another housing estate. Water pressure is already an issue & if no further infrastructure for this is to be implemented, it will only get worse. Visibility will be an issue entering & leaving the estate which will cause issues. So many houses have been built & not sold in recent years - why do we need more. There will be more pressure on the doctors. The only thing that would benefit would be the school but will young families be able to afford to buy there?

Site SD10: Object
As above. Plus access for so many new properties via Gorselands would be an issue. Maybe wait at least until existing properties are sold & sites with planning permission is granted. When the 2 houses opposite the doctors were built there was months of issues with the vehicles blocking roads & being abusive to people. This will no doubt be even worse! Plus they left the grass verges in such a mess & still do while maintaining the empty houses.

Site SD11: Object
To propose new sites there needs to be safe & usable accessibility. This is not the case and would require massive & additional development to create access.

There are several sites in Sedlescombe which have already been designated for development for several years which have NOT been started. Until these houses are built & lived in it makes no sense to disrupt the unique nature of the High Weald AONB & wildlife further.

This area designated is really infringing on the AONB High Weald. It is separate from the village & therefore the development site would be actually in the AONB!!

Site SD10: Object
This site would also cause disruption to the High Weald AONB & again is unwarranted until development on already approved sites has been started.

There are 2 houses that have been built in Sedlescombe approx. 1.5 yrs ago which are still standing empty.

My question: Is there proof that there is actual demand for such large proposed quantity of new houses. Or is the Rother govt simply ticking boxes in the name of the Government rather than supporting the people who voted them in!

Site SD10: Object
This site is very unsound for any dwellings in the fields for the following reasons:
Access in + out of Gorselands to Brede Lane is already hazardous.
Water pressure is dreadful in many houses already, more dwellings would simply exacerbate this problem.
It would simply cause unacceptable harm to the High Weald National Landscape and of course all the wildlife.
There is no need for any more land to be given up for housing as already suitable sites still have no houses built on them.
Water run-off from these fields is already bad, more hard surfaces will only make matters far worse with roads breaking up with bad situations occurring in icy conditions.
Environmental impacts have not been properly addressed..
It contradicts long standing evidence identifying the site as very unsuitable.

Site SD10: Object
I am very concerned about this development; the land behind our house is elevated, any houses built on that land would look directly into our bedroom and kitchen I would lose our privacy. I also agree with all the objections made by the Parish Council. This development will seriously impact on many people there are other site which would not effect so many people. There is also a lot of wild animals, such as newts, bats, foxes + dear, these will also be effected. This field is used by many dog walking. It would be a real shame to lose it. Lot of laying water on the field, concern if built on, water would flood no 24, 26, 28 + 30.

Site SD10: Object
Any access to the new site would be inadequate/dangerous. The access is too narrow and any re-control of the gardens of Gorselands is unethical. Those gardens have been maintained for decades by the residents with no assistance from the landowner. The immediate area cannot maintain a suitable water pressure currently - it will be non-existent with further dwellings. The building of just 15 dwellings on a small site benefits nobody other than the developer. 15 dwellings is not going to help any housing 'crisis'. There are much more suitable sites which would have less impact on current residents and provide more dwellings.

Site SD10: Object
Not suitable for any more houses on this site:
a) natural conservation will be ruined.
b) the back of our hosue is on a slope, so houses built above it will look straight into our house.
c) risk of flooding for same reason.
d) road is breaking up now - so will be much worse.
e) no infrastructure in village.
f) local fields & woods used by many people, dog walkers and the local school children.
g) difficult to get out at end of road - quite dangerous - more cars - even more so!!

Site SD11: Object
This area is outstandingly beautiful. It is a lane servicing the village and often especially at school times it is very busy. Traffic is rapid. The school children filter out onto this road. The current infrastructure of the village would not be able to support the potential number of people and cars that would increase if this site was to go ahead. 38 houses? 3 residents in each? 2-3 cars in each - too many. The Street in Sedlescombe has become very busy with cars/lorries regularly speeding. Increasing this would become unmanageable and alter the village beyond repair.

Site SD10: Object
All of the above comments I feel are also very relevant to this site and would further compound all issues raised. I understand the need for housing but I do not feel these large developments are what a village should provide and are they actually supplying demand? The traffic calming has been in the planning stage for several years and there is still no change. Traffic is dangerous and fast and more houses would worsen this. The village would loose its unique character and outstanding countryside atmosphere if too many houses are built.

Site SD11: Object

Concerns with the development of 3 sites (74 homes) in close proximity to each other in an area of outstanding natural beauty and rural in a small village where the infrastructure already struggles to cope. All of the sites to be accessed by Brede Lane where the school traffic already creates issues and difficulty outside the Drs Surgery. The lane cannot cope already.

Site SD10: Object
Access concerns re Gorselands coping with and the safety of extra traffic. Previously turned down by Highways for this reason. Brede Lane and the [illegible] to Gorselands. Ruins an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty disrupting local wildlife and the environment. Housing not needed as proved by the new builds not yet sold or occupied. Water pressure is already a huge problem and cannot be turned up as it blows the mains pipe in the village which has already been repaired multiple times.

Site SD11: Object

I agree with all the Parish Council's comments.

Site SD10: Object

I agree with all the Parish Council comments

Is there a need for more housing, how will the surgery and school cope, volume of traffic, should this be affordable housing if any are built.

Sunningdale objection

I am concerned that the recognised site which has been on the Neighbourhood Plan for a while is not suitable for development due to the flood risk and there is only one access in & out therefore with increased traffic the site will not handle the increased traffic flow also with the cars that are already parked in Gregory Walk this has an impact on getting emergency services causing delays & cost of lives.

Site SD11: Object
Should not be built on AONB land without creating community benefit. Land is part of a natural drainage system and this development will overburden the natural balance of the drainage and will create a flood area. No demonstrable housing need in this area.

Site SD10: Object
Should not be built on AONB land would create a domino effect which would lead to an overdeveloped high density housing area which is totally foreign to this village.

Site SD11: Object
There are already several unsold properties in the area and the development of another greenfield site is totally unjustified.

Site SD10: Object
The wildlife here is unique and the proposed development will severely impact several protected species. Again I see no justification for a development of this size and as a resident fear that our water pressure will cause major problems.

Site SD11: Object
One of my main concerns not yet mentioned is the use (over many years & many locations) of good farm land for building. Once built on it will never grow food again. Brownfield sites must be prioritised. I fear in some years time we may be dependant on Russia for our potatoes. In addition, I fear for the effect on wildlife.

Site SD10: Object
One of my main concerns not yet mentioned is the use (over many years & many locations) of good farm land for building. Once built on it will never grow food again. Brownfield sites must be prioritised. I fear in some years time we may be dependant on Russia for our potatoes. In addition, I fear for the effect on wildlife.

Site SD11: Object
SD11 proposed site has dreadful visibility exiting onto Brede Lane + the loand opposite SD7 Street Farm has had permission for several years + only a trench has been dug. SD11 is also stuck away from other homes + the High Weald National Landscape will suffer yet again as it will with SD10, again no obbious housing need otherwise why hasn't SD7 been developed.

SD10: Object
SD10 see comments above, a spur off The Gorseland road makes access difficult + we have known for years how unsuitable the site is.

Site SD11: Object
Not necessary

Site SD10: Object
Not necessary

Site SD11: Object
Safe access is unlikely as Brede Lane is already very busy. No demand. We have unsold new hosues and undeveloped approves sites.

Site SD10: Object
Very poor access. Spoiling a rural idyl. No demand. We have unsold new houses and undeveloped approved sites.

Site SD11: Object
Access to this site is restricted by poor road access from a narrow lane. This area is a big part of the natural landscape with a wonderful country views. The area already has a large estate opposite to this field and the increase in traffic to this area would be bad. The village does not need an influx of people.

Site SD10: Object
Area of natural beauty will be destroyed.

Site SD11: Object
Feel it would be to close + destroy our beautiful landscape + cause lots of traffic congestion.

Site SD10: Object
Would destroy our beautiful landscape + to close to a quite retired road.

Site SD11: Object
Damage to environment + biodiversity. Not legally available for development. No real demand for new housing development.

Site SD10: Object
No real demand for new housing development. Low water pressure issues. Damage to environment + biodiversity. #SaveTheTrees

Site SD11: Object

Site SD10: Object

Site SD11: Object
1) Agreed approved sites offer a good scope of new housing. What benefit of approving new development without building out existing approved existing approved developments.
2) Impact on local facilities which are already at limit.

Site SD11: Object
1) Low water pressure is in the village already. Extra housing would make it worse.
2) 38 houses too many not needed. Too much extra traffic for narrow lane.
3) Would harm the environment greatly & have an impact on getting an appointment @ the doctor's.
4) We already have allocated site's which haven't even been build on yet.

Site SD10: Object
1) Low water pressure is in the village already. Extra housing would make it worse.
2) 38 houses too many not needed. Too much extra traffic for narrow lane.
3) Would harm the environment greatly & have an impact on getting an appointment @ the doctor's.
4) We already have allocated site's which haven't even been build on yet.