I do not want 65 new homes built in our area - we are already pushed for resources and this would completely change the area that we moved to 2 years ago for it's peaceful nature. It's a MASSIVE amount of new homes to introduce to a small infrastructure. I also wonder how the roads/access will cope with all the building. It will ruin this beautiful, small, quiet village. It will no longer be that! This will ruin it. Also - if we couldn't build a dormer on our roof, why should 3 housing developments get the go ahead. Unbelievable corrupt behaviour once again from planning. A total joke.

I truly believe that building houses on bc2 the old manroy site will be a danger, as the lane is very narrow, and already is dangerous the amount of cars parked along Hobbs lane. Ebrofrost have large lorry’s delivering to them, and this is going to cause chaos down an already busy lane. Bc1 and bc3 are more suited in my opinion as they are accessed from the main road. The surface of Hobbs lane is already like driving on an unadapted road, so will just be made worse with more houses built down here.

Ref bc2, the proposed amount of dwellings seems to be too many for the plot considering required service vehicles across, visitor parking, risking vehicles parking at narrow points of the lane. The condition of the entrance to Hobbs Lane Russ surface is already unfit for use, and with additional vehicle traffic for this many houses will only seek to further erode non maintained surfaces.

BC1: where will all the excess water go created by the new buildings. The water already floods across Main Street.
BC3: How his this proposed development in keeping with the natural area? This will cause more car parking along Main Street in addition the the current problem, making it even more dangerous to exit from drives opposite the proposed site.
How does Beckley need an additional 53 houses? There is no supporting
Why are all the prosed sites in Four Oaks and nothing actually in Beckley?

BC3 housing is being considered in an area that has Victorian drainage that causes problems at least a few times a year. We already have problems we don’t need them added too Main Street is already a cut through road with huge Lorries and cars going much faster than the speed limit. The doctors are full up and on top of all this it will take away the natural fabric of the village. The village has no shop you can walk to, it’s really just a road and not a wide enough one at that. The majority of us at this end have no off street parking so the traffic is always darting in and out, therefore making it dangerous. I understand more housing is needed but on Main Street, I would truly think again.

The road is used as a thorough fare . With the proposed houses in Peasmarsh, Northiam and Beckley it will make the road dangerous. Access in and out of the proposed development is likely to be hazardous as it’s inevitable that cars will be parked in Main Street due to limited parking on new housing estates. We already have severe sewage problems in the road. The drains are a constant problem . Electric cars will be encouraged and does not take into account that the majority of people in these family houses will be commuting despite the fact that we have regular power cuts. The proposed field in Beckley has a high water table and is currently like a river . Many people in the village are using pumps and their rear gardens are under water.

Site Location Plan BC3
I am objecting to the above due to the amount of traffic that already passes through the village and is a danger to the residents it’s a 30mph with residents having to park on the road. With the amount of new houses proposed on this site there will be an issue of parking . Additional cars will be parked in the road as an overspill for the proposed houses making access to Main Street quite dangerous. At the time of composing this there is toilet paper and sewage along the pavement opposite the proposed development as the sewage pipes can’t take the ingress of water A section of sewage pipes has been replaced but I have been told that sewage pipes need to be replaced all along Main Street . The main Drs surgery in Northiam are not taking on any new patients.

BC1, BC2, BC3
The proposed developments are inappropriate for Beckley village . The village is a friendly small village and too much development will destroy the character of the village . There are no amenities to support a larger population . The whole area is subject to flooding regularly so is unsuitable for development. The amount of farmland and green spaces are to be preserved and not built on .The traffic the proposed new developments would create and the inevitable additional parking in Main Street would result in dangerous road conditions. Preserve our villages !

BC3
The road is used as a thoroughfare. With the proposed houses in Peasmarsh, Northiam and Beckley it will make the road dangerous. The parked cars outside the school is ridiculous and you have to drive past facing oncoming traffic . All the fields are under water and the sewage issues will be there for yrs to come as the sewage pipes are so old and need replacing when there’s no money to do this. Building will have a big impact on quality of life and to the countryside

BC3 & BC1 – The Four Oaks end of Beckley is already hazardous due to the high volume of on-street parking. Any further increase in vehicles in this area will significantly heighten the risk of accidents. The village functions as a through route, and an increase in traffic—particularly vehicles exiting onto Main Street—would create additional safety concerns and congestion that are not sustainable.

Furthermore, the local area has experienced regular flooding in recent years, which already impacts road safety and access. Beckley is a small rural community with limited infrastructure, and it is not equipped to accommodate additional traffic pressures without compromising safety and accessibility.

I strongly object to the proposed site at Buddens Green being built on. Buddens Green cul de sac is not adequate to cope with the increase in traffic which will be generated. The land that is proposed to be built upon floods every year when ever there is heavy rain . The surface water which will be generated by additional houses will create more flooding . There is no mention of extra infrastructure , so the local school and drs will not be able to cope .

Why are there no new developments in Beckley. These are ALL in Four Oaks. We need buses, not moved bus stops. BC1 and BC3 will both impede on the viability of Listed property Braeside as a character property in the village. BC1 floods several times a year, very badly, including flooding Main Street. I believe photos have been provided to RDC. The existing drainage can’t cope with the current house numbers. Please review further Main Street gaps towards Beckley! We have NO services in Beckley, post office, coffee shop, convenience store. Why are you adding more properties that WILL ALL require cars as the public transport is non existent!

I have concerns about the total number of houses a the capacity of the local school which has 30 remaining spaces. 54 households is likely to exceed this.
There is also significant flooding to Main Street to the north of BC1 which covers the road from the pond which will be increased with surface run off from the development at BC1. I have no objection to BC2 and BC3 and would like more families to come to the village but need a growth in facilities.

In relation to BC2. The lane already can’t stand the volume of traffic as it is and it’s constantly in need of works due to the intensity of the potholes created by traffic. The proposed site is a haven for wildlife and will cause unnecessary negative impacts on native species. It is an unnecessary development.

Please see attached document for full submission regarding HELAA site BEC0025 Land west of Royal Oak Close, Beckley including supporting Landscape Technical Note from 2024.

I purchased my property specifically for its quiet countryside setting, low traffic levels, and open overground land views, all of which would be irreversibly harmed by the proposed scheme. My objection is based on material planning considerations, in line with Rother District Council’s published guidance for submitting planning representations. The site currently provides open overground land which forms a key part of the rural setting and contributes to the local landscape character. Replacing this with a high‑density cluster of 20 dwellings would:
Remove long‑established countryside views
Introduce built form where none currently exists
Cause permanent and irreversible visual harm
Erode the distinct rural identity the area is known for

The existing landscape offers a natural open buffer that defines the settlement edge. A development of this scale would effectively urbanise an area that is currently countryside.

Hobbs Lane site (BC2) massively over-dense (why 20 on 0.5ha vs 13 on 0.48 nearby?), impossible access/parking, additional footway impossible (crosses private garden), road in awful shape, single track

I am concerned, as a citizen of Beckley about the number of houses proposed for our village.
1 are there enough places at the doctor's surgery?
2 are there places at the local schools
3 will there be enough water to supply these houses as we are short of water every year already
4 will the roads take all these extra cars, bearing in mind they are already falling apart
5 what about the flooding issues we have in the village every winter?
6 there is almost no hope of getting an NHS dentist now so how will local dentists manage that?
7 we need first time buyer housing 1 - 2 beds not 3 - 4 beds if we have to have building and council houses for people to rent
8 20 of the above but no more, would be welcome

Site BC1, The site location floods on a regular basis. For the village to accommodate extra housing, it should be taken into account that we have no shops, no doctors surgery and a poor bus service. This site location should also take into account that far to few parking spaces are allocated per dwelling, causing vehicles to be parked on the roads and causing obstructions. This winter (2025-2026) we witnessed our sewage pipes becoming overwhelmed with rainwater, our our sewage treatment works was flooded and inaccessible, causing many problems. So services will need upgrading and maintaining before any building works are suggested.

Site Ref BC2, Access to the site is down a narrow country lane, normally only a single track is available due to parked vehicles. The condition of this lane (Hobbs Lane) has been getting worse every year. East Sussex Highways have no money to bring the lane back to a safe standard of acceptance, so any building work must include full refurbishment of Hobbs Lane. According to the dwelling allocation on the plan, this site could accommodate up to 28 dwellings (0.71 Hectares). However, with only two parking spaces allocated for each home, where do all the extra cars park? Beckley has no shops, a poor bus service, the school is nearly 2 miles away and we have no doctors surgery. Sewage will also be an issue as this land is lower than the surrounding housing on Hobbs Lane. Heavy lorries use this lane to access existing businesses.

I object to BC1 because Buddens Green is a small residential close and is not suitable to serve as the access for 20 new houses. This would significantly increase traffic movements, alter the character of the close, and raise pedestrian safety concerns. A Planning Inspector dismissed a 16-house scheme on this site in 2018 due to harm to the High Weald AONB and settlement character. The new proposal increases the number to 20 dwellings without demonstrating how those harms are overcome.

Rother District Council
Local plan 2026-2042 - Beckley, Four Oaks

Geographical evidence shows that in Roman times (two millenium ago) Britain's climate, ground water-levels, and tidal reaches were scientifically higher than today's - and that with a population a tiny fraction of today's! And yet, today's self-professed 'experts' in their 'man-made climate change paranoia' insist 'man' is the problem - and ipso facto, demand an unnecessarily, increase in our 'climate changing' population by building millions of new homes on agricultural land, while encouraging commuting to distant employment areas.... and yet there are about one million empty homes waiting to be refurbished. The world has gone mad. Sort then out before building anew.

BC-1 Buddens Green, Four Oaks
- Permission has long been granted to develop this land to meet 'proven local needs' - that does not mean speculative development for urban dwellers who aspire to 'live' in' the country, out pricing local people.
- The land to the north-west is prone to flooding from ground water in Kings Bank Lane. Restore it to a pond. lt is shown n 18thC OS maps as a pond.
- This development should be of low priority
- Any development should be hidden as any work here breaches the demarcation between Beckley and Four Oaks

BC-2 Manroy, Hobbs Lane
- Re-development of this site for industrial use, using modern lorries is no longer viable. Their is no longer any manufacturing - or shops! - in Beckley.
- 40 dwellings/ha (90/acre) is far too high for the village. Every household will likely have 2 cars to wit, the garage should be part of the ground floor to keep the highway clear. If necessary build to 3-stories.

BC-3 Oakley Cottages,
- 35/ha (77/acre) is far too high
- as BC-1 above, any development cannot be hidden as any work breaches the demarcation between the hamlets of Beckley and Four Oaks

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.

I strongly object to BC1 because Buddens Green is a small residential close and is not suitable to serve as the access for 20 new houses. This would significantly increase traffic movements, alter the character of the close, and raise pedestrian safety concerns. A Planning Inspector dismissed a 16-house scheme on this site in 2018 due to harm to the High Weald AONB and settlement character. The new proposal increases the number to 20 dwellings without demonstrating how those harms are overcome.

I write as a resident of Buddens Green, directly adjacent to the proposed access for the BC1 allocation of approximately 20 dwellings.

I wish to object to the allocation of this site for the following planning reasons.

1. Traffic Generation & Highway Safety

Policy BC1 requires a new vehicular access from Buddens Green to serve approximately 20 dwellings.

Buddens Green is a small residential close comprising eight dwellings. It is not a through-road designed to accommodate estate-level traffic.

A development of 20 dwellings is likely to generate:
• 35–50 additional vehicle movements per day (minimum typical rural trip rates),
• Concentrated peak-hour traffic,
• Additional delivery and service vehicles.

This represents a material intensification of traffic movements within a small residential close.

The Planning Inspector in the 2018 appeal decision (APP/U1430/W/18/3197448) identified the importance of the site’s rural character and dispersed settlement form. Introducing a development of this scale via Buddens Green would urbanise what is currently a small, quiet residential cul-de-sac.

Increased vehicle movements raise concerns regarding:
• Pedestrian safety, including children and elderly residents;
• Visibility at the junction with Main Street (B2088);
• Emergency vehicle access;
• On-street congestion during construction;
• Construction traffic impact on road condition and safety.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF Paragraph 111), development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. However, this is an allocation stage decision: the Council must be satisfied that Buddens Green is suitable in principle to serve estate-scale development. There is currently no evidence presented to demonstrate that this small close is capable of safely accommodating the level of traffic generated by 20 new dwellings.



2. Intensification Beyond the Dismissed Scheme

The 2018 appeal dismissed a proposal for 16 dwellings on this land.

The current allocation proposes 20 dwellings — a significant increase in scale.

The Inspector concluded that development on this site would:
• Harm the High Weald AONB;
• Erode an important open gap;
• Undermine the dispersed settlement pattern;
• Introduce suburbanising characteristics.

The current proposal intensifies development beyond what was previously found unacceptable.

Relocating development further into the field does not remove the Inspector’s fundamental conclusions regarding the intrinsic countryside value of the site and the harm to settlement character.



3. Impact on Character of Buddens Green

Buddens Green is a small, self-contained close of modest residential properties.

Introducing the primary access to a 20-dwelling development through this close would:
• Fundamentally change its character from quiet residential cul-de-sac to estate access road;
• Increase noise, traffic, and general disturbance;
• Alter the perception and function of the close.

This would conflict with local plan policies seeking to protect the locally distinctive character of rural settlements.



4. AONB Protection

The site lies within the High Weald National Landscape.

Under NPPF Paragraph 182:

Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The 2018 Inspector concluded that development on this site failed that test.

The current allocation increases the quantum of development without demonstrating how landscape harm would be avoided.



5. Drainage and Surface Water

The supporting text for BC1 acknowledges:
• Flood risk constraints within parts of the field;
• Surface water risk along the western boundary.

Residents are aware that surface water drainage in this locality is sensitive.

Increased hardstanding, access roads, and roof coverage will inevitably alter drainage patterns. Without detailed hydrological evidence at allocation stage, it cannot be assumed that the development will not exacerbate localised flooding or surface water displacement.

Allocation should not proceed without robust evidence demonstrating that flood risk will not increase elsewhere, in accordance with NPPF Paragraphs 166–168.



Conclusion

The 2018 appeal decision demonstrates that development of this field causes harm to the High Weald AONB and the character of Beckley.

The current proposal:
• Increases development to 20 dwellings when 16 have previously been denied.

• Buddens Green is a small residential close it is definitely not suitable for traffic accessing an estate of houses. It is only just coping with current residents traffic.

• Intensifies vehicle movements and safety risks.

• Introduces urbanising effects into a rural AONB setting.

• Raises unresolved drainage concerns.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Policy BC1 be reconsidered or significantly reduced in scale.
Mrs Deborah Ongley

I fail to understand how this plot is up for planning again, considering planning has been applied for here about 6 times and been rejected every time.

The building of any new houses in Beckley needs careful consideration as there aren't any amenities, the school can't accept any more children, the local sewage works can't handle any more waste, and time and time again it's been proven that you cannot get the drains to work from BC1, the field to west of Buddens Green, not to mention the fact that this field is under water for most of the winter, there must be better places to build a few houses.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and other sites would be taken into consideration

Ian Goodsell

I strongly object to BC1 because Buddens Green is a small residential close and is not suitable to serve as the access for 20 new houses. This would significantly increase traffic movements, alter the character of the close, and raise pedestrian safety concerns. A Planning Inspector dismissed a 16-house scheme on this site in 2018 due to harm to the High Weald AONB and settlement character. The new proposal increases the number to 20 dwellings without demonstrating how those harms are overcome.

Donna Ayres, concerned Resident

BC1 frequently floods, it has been rejected many times for this reason, All 3 proposed areas in Beckley need to be rejected, Beckley does not have the infrastructure to support this many new houses, new houses will not be bought as they are intended to be “to provide affordable housing in the area” they will all end up being council properties.
Why are we continuing to try to ruin an area and increase crime or unsociable behaviour, because again it’s another money making scheme. Cutting through all the rubbish in the reasoning, poor quality houses will be built on a cheap budget, won’t be sold and then become allocated council houses, every house around these areas will lose value.
There are plenty of houses for sale in the area, we do not need any more as the ones that are for sale aren’t selling.

Leave Beckley as it is!

the traffic for 2 lots of 20 houses will be ridiculous and very dangerous! People park their cars on the road so that slows traffic up significantly anyway . Priority should be a shop or post office over housing unless reduced significantly…

The proposed site in Hobbs lane (BC2) is contaminated with asbestos from the demolition of the factory that was there. The site is not big enough for the number of houses suggested…a smaller number would be better. Aspects such as the lack of parking and pavements needs to be considered. The frequent power cuts, flooding issues and water problems in the village indicate the infrastructure cannot cope as it is before 50+ houses are added to the village.
I think in rural villages windfall houses should count towards the overall total.
The buddens green site…whilst the rear field is suitable, the field butting up to Main Street is a flood area and is underwater most of the time so is not suitable for houses.
The remaining field is near the sewerage plant which frequently floods making any sites near by unsuitable.