Beckley is a small village comprising approximately 1037 residents and 500 residences. The 3 site proposal for Beckley has proposed 53 new houses. This is proposing increasing the housing stock by 10%. There is a pre school and a primary school and a village hall in Beckley. There is a recreation ground which is often water logged. There is NOT a GP surgery in Beckley. There are NO shops in Beckley. Due to the rural nature of Beckley it is virtually impossible to walk to the next villages, either Peasmarsh or Northiam, as there are no pavements to both villages and the roads are very busy. Certainly not to be undertaken with a pushchair, young children or a wheelchair. It is not therefore an ideal place for anyone to live without their own transport. There is a sparse bus service in the village but not something which you could rely on for commuting or "nipping to the shops". Where are all these new residents going to work? Certainly not in the village there isnt anywhere. Traffic would increase therefore considerably. Beckley can not sustain increased housing adequately and i therefore object to the 3 sites proposal.

Once again I find myself writing to you Rother District Council about the same dwellings on Hobbs Lane (BC2) Beckley.

These dwellings were thrown out last time due to unsuitability and that there was no pathway for the entrance as the lane is much too narrow. The drains in this area are very old and the infrastructure is lacking. We experience frequent power cuts and water/plumbing issues.

The road itself is not fit for purpose, Lorrie’s, tractors, combines, cars all use the road and it is filled with hundreds of potholes with no places to park. Having more residents the road will become very unsafe for all cars and people especially children and the elderly who use the lane to get to the public footpath.

I have lived here since the late 70s where it was an outstanding example of green countryside. I do not believe this will work in Hobbs Lane Beckley and strongly object to all this happening.

I do understand the need for more dwellings in Beckley and the surrounding areas however Hobbs Lane is not suitable.

I hope that you reconsider

I have lived in Beckley all my life and in Buddens Green for twenty-eight years. As my home is adjacent to the proposed access for the BC1 allocation of approximately twenty new dwellings, I wish to object in the strongest terms to the allocation of this land for the following reasons:

Buddens Green is a small close comprising eight houses. It is not a through-road designed to accommodate estate level traffic. It is extremely difficult to live in Beckley without a car as it only has one school, one pub, a village hall and a church; therefore, twenty new homes will generate a lot of extra traffic including delivery and service vehicles.

In the 2018 appeal decision (APP/U1430/W/18/3197448), the Planning Inspector identified the importance of the site's rural character. Building a development on this scale would urbanise and completely ruin this small, quiet, rural cul-de-sac. There is currently no evidence which demonstrates that the Buddens Green site is capable of safely accommodating the level of traffic which would be generated by twenty new homes. I really do not want to have forty cars driving past my house throughout the day - and this would very likely be the case if this development is built on this scale.

The previously dismissed scheme in 2018 was for sixteen dwellings on this land; the current allocation proposes twenty dwellings which is a significant increase in scale. The Planning Inspector stated that the proposed scheme in 2018 would harm the High Weald AONB, erode an important open gap, undermine the dispersed settlement pattern and introduce suburbanising characteristics. The current proposal would intensify all these issues which were found unacceptable on a smaller scale. Relocating the development further into the field would not remove the Inspector's previous conclusions regarding the intrinsic countryside value of the site.

Introducing the primary access to a development of twenty dwellings through Buddens Green would change its character from a quiet residential cul-de-sac to an estate access road. It would increase noise, traffic and general disturbance. Furthermore, it would completely alter the perception and function of the close which is surely in conflict with local plan policies which seek to protect the distinctive character of rural settlements.

The site is located in 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 Beauty." In 2018, the Planning Inspector concluded that development on this site would fail that test. The current allocation would increase the degree of development and does not show how landscape harm could be avoided.

The supporting text for BC1 acknowledges flood risk constraints in parts of the field and surface water risk along the western boundary. The occupants of 1 Buddens Green have already sustained flooding which has caused damage to their garden and an outbuilding and our own garden has also been affected by flooding. Increased hard standing, access roads and roof coverage will affect drainage and will very likely exacerbate localised flooding.

In conclusion, the 2018 appeal decision demonstrates that development of this area would cause harm to a High Weald Area of Natural Beauty and, indeed, the character of Beckley. The current proposal increases the development to twenty dwellings when sixteen were previously denied. The current development proposal would increase vehicle movements and safety risks. It would introduce urbanising effects to a rural setting and increase drainage concerns.

The land on which Buddens Green was originally developed was donated by a local resident purely for the use of building affordable housing so that young residents of Beckley could stay here. It was never intended to be used to create an urban-style housing estate and this fact appears to have been forgotten.

The local primary school is very small and would not be able to support the numbers of children a new development of this size is likely to create. The increased population would also affect the local doctors' surgery in Northiam, which is already under pressure.

There is already an existing retrospective planning application for stables directly behind the site allocated for the proposed new development. The owner of this land has already had a significant negative impact on the residents of Buddens Green by increasing traffic and noise, so I am furious and extremely concerned about the impact a housing estate will have.

I am very fortunate to live in this beautiful, peaceful location and I feel very strongly about the proposed development which would completely change this environment, damage the wildlife, create noise and increase pollution. I would be grateful if you would reconsider the development proposals outlined.

I have lived in Buddens Green for twenty-eight years and my husband has lived in Beckley for all of his life. Our children grew up in the village and enjoyed the privileges of living in a peaceful, rural environment. As my home is adjacent to the proposed access for the BC1 allocation of approximately twenty new dwellings, I wish to object to the allocation of this land for the following reasons:

Buddens Green is a small close comprising eight houses. It is not a through-road designed to accommodate estate level traffic. It is extremely difficult to live in Beckley without a car as it only has one school, one pub, a village hall and a church; therefore, twenty new homes will generate a lot of extra traffic including delivery and service vehicles.

In the 2018 appeal decision (APP/U1430/W/18/3197448), the Planning Inspector identified the importance of the site's rural character. Building a development on this scale would urbanise and completely ruin this small, quiet, rural cul-de-sac. There is currently no evidence which demonstrates that the Buddens Green site is capable of safely accommodating the level of traffic which would be generated by twenty new homes. I really do not want to have forty cars driving past my house throughout the day - and this would very likely be the case if a development is built on this scale.

The previously dismissed scheme in 2018 was for sixteen dwellings on this land; the current allocation proposes twenty dwellings which is a significant increase in scale. The Planning Inspector stated that the proposed scheme in 2018 would harm the High Weald AONB, erode an important open gap, undermine the dispersed settlement pattern and introduce suburbanising characteristics. The current proposal would intensify all these issues which were found unacceptable on a smaller scale. Relocating the development further into the field would not remove the Inspector's previous conclusions regarding the intrinsic countryside value of the site.

Introducing the primary access to a development of twenty dwellings through Buddens Green would change its character from a quiet residential cul-de-sac to an estate access road. It would increase noise, traffic and general disturbance. Furthermore, it would completely alter the perception and function of the close which is surely in conflict with local plan policies which seek to protect the distinctive character of rural settlements.

The site is located in 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 Beauty". In 2018, the Planning Inspector concluded that development on this site would fail that test. The current allocation would increase the degree of development and does not show how landscape harm could be avoided.

The supporting text for BC1 acknowledges flood risk constraints in parts of the field and surface water risk along the western boundary. The occupants of 1 Buddens Green have already sustained flooding which caused damage to their garden and an outbuilding, and our own garden has also been affected by flooding. Increased hard standing, access roads and roof coverage will affect drainage and will very likely exacerbate localised flooding.

In conclusion, the 2018 appeal decision demonstrates that development of this area would cause harm to a High Weald Area of Natural Beauty and, indeed, the character of Beckley. The current proposal increases the development to twenty dwellings when sixteen were previously denied. The current development proposal would increase vehicle movements and safety risks. It would introduce urbanising effects to a rural setting and increase drainage concerns.

The land on which Buddens Green was originally developed was donated by a local resident purely for the use of building affordable housing so that young residents of Beckley could stay here. It was never intended to be used to create an urban-style housing estate and this fact appears to have been forgotten.

The local primary school is very small and would not be able to support the numbers of children a new development of this size is likely to create. The increased population would also affect the local doctors' surgery in Northiam, which is already under pressure.

There is an existing retrospective planning application for stables directly behind the site allocated for the proposed new development. The owner of this land has already had a significant negative impact on the residents of Buddens Green by increasing traffic and noise, so I am extremely concerned about the impact a housing estate will have.

I am very fortunate to live in this beautiful, peaceful location and I feel very strongly about the proposed development which would completely change this environment, damage the wildlife, create noise and increase pollution. I would therefore be grateful if you would reconsider the development proposals.

BC2. . Incorrect Demolition of asbestos, has left the ground Contaminated, confirmed by Environmental Health at the time.
No proper infrastructure, Water, ban every summer, just when it’s required for growth and biodiversity
Electricity, numerous power cuts,, as we have low power
.The sewage drains also end with us pre new site. ( Numerous drainage problems )
Lack of public services and amenities. Dr’s, next village, hospital, moving from Hastings towards Eastbourne.
Public transport, scarce and 1/2 mile walk, to bus stop, no shops! Pub 2 miles away.
No work
recreation field , play area and village hall, all 1 mile + away Factory opposite the proposed site, has numerous lorries daily , plus farm vehicles that use the very busy lane and a garage . The proposed footpath would block the lane. Limited parking.Where are all the extra cars ,going to go!
Biodiversity has already reclaimed what was destroyed,

OBJECTION TO THE DRAFT PLAN 2025 – 2042

General Comment: The Draft plan lists BC1, BC2 and BC3 all of which are in the Village of Four Oaks. No planning proposals are made for the village of Beckley. Four Oaks is already the most congested village in the Parish of Beckley and the planning proposals would increase the number of dwellings by circa. 17%. This is an unacceptable burden on Four Oaks, with no spread across the Parish generally. Additional pollution, traffic and noise would be imposed on the smallest village. There is a lack of services in Four Oaks and therefore this large increase in housing would be unsustainable.
Four Oaks has a population of just over 300 and the demographic of this increase in social housing could raise the population by anything up to 50%, with the possibility of 150 additional vehicles, whereas Beckley village, which does have limited services, is not included in the planning proposals.
In the previous Rother DC’s Settlement Strategy it was stated (under Development Potential) that “With its almost non-existent level of service provision in combination with environmental constraints, Four Oaks is not suitable for new development of any significant scale.”
In a recent report by the Planning Inspectorate in connection with a previous proposed development in the village of Four Oaks, he stated “I also attach considerable weight to the professional view of the Council’s Head of Housing that in this location the provision of a substantial number of affordable houses, over and above the needs of those in Beckley, would be likely to create social problems for poor families with limited resources”

My main objection is in connection with BC3, as follows:

1) The field is outside of the existing development boundary and therefore in the Countryside, which maintains the Village characteristic of an undeveloped gap, bringing the countryside into the village.
2) Main Street in Four Oaks and Beckley villages is developed in linear form and this proposal to build into the countryside would be against the historical character and create an unwelcome and possibly uncontrollable precedent. Rother DC’s previous proposal was for 6 terraced dwellings, to be built only in linear form and whilst still contradicting the protection of the countryside, at least retained the historical lineage of the village.
3) There are gaps in the Ribbon development and has been previously recorded by Rother DC as "a key feature of the settlement pattern, but its further extension into the countryside would have a detrimental impact on the rural setting of the village. In addition the extensive infilling of the existing gaps in the otherwise built up frontage would alter the inherent semi rural character of the main village.”
4) It has been used as farmland in the past and there is no evidence to support assertions that it is unsuitable for such use.
5) The field is located within the High Weald National Landscape. The spacious and verdant nature and lack of development sits comfortably within the rural surrounds of the National Landscape and contributes positively to it.
6) A development of 13 dwellings would not only impinge the historical linear nature of Main Street but also seem to create an improbability of delivering mandatory biodiversity net gain.
7) The 2010 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment by Rother DC listed this field as “A site excluded from any future development.”
8) Rother DC assertion that the proposed development would not restrict views into the open countryside is totally disputed. From Main Street extensive views are obtained over the field and adjoining fields beyond, to the Wealden countryside. To the west of the field runs a countryside footpath. From it, views are obtained over the field.
9) In addition to the aforementioned objections, I contend that 13 dwellings would be a total overdevelopment. The harm this would cause would be compounded by a probable uninspired layout of a suburban design dominated presumably by an access road and car parking spaces. Main Street at Four Oaks end is already congested by roadside parking, much of which is part on the pavement due to the width restriction of the road way and a further possible 26 plus vehicles exiting from BC3, could exacerbate the problem.

BC1 Buddens Green Beckley residents are concerned about the flooding on and from this site. We would be pleased to see some remedy to both Main Street and the field being underwater in periods of continuous rain. However, the suggestions made in the Plan to address this do not appear to be adequate and the very least are likely to redirect water to create problems elsewhere. It should be borne in mind that there is a series of natural springs running roughly parallel to the south side of Main Street from at least Horseshoe Lane to the Buddens Green area.

Density of dwellings proposed is too great on what is visually an open space looking from the road towards the green landscape beyond this site. I am concerned that the need for hard landscaping (road, paved parking) will counteract improvements to drainage.

BC2 Hobbs Lane To go anywhere from this site on foot has serious risk. There is no footway along Hobbs Lane and then you have to cross the A268/B2088 junction on a dangerous bend to reach the bus stop or go on to school etc. Hobbs Lane is poorly maintained and unsuitable for extra traffic in the long term and heavy vehicles during construction.

All sites: Parking provision is not adequate. This should be at least for 2 cars per household and even then visiting vehicles are likely to obstruct roadways.
Frequent problems with water supply, sewerage and power etc. suggest that providing supply to new housing without infrastructure improvement could reduce the quality of services available to existing residents and businesses.

BC2 - Need to specify dwelling size, Beckley needs smaller dwellings not 4 bedroom houses down a single track lane (previous planning). Note that this site is below mains sewage level, needs to be pumped, electricity supply in this area has had issues, so what happens to sewage in the outages? Parking is a massive problem, houses need more than one space, bus service has just been reduced and walking/cycling to Rye is downright dangerous -A268 has blind corners with no verges or pavements, summer traffic to camber can be heavy. Hobbs Lane is a single track lane to a dead end, the road surface is poorly maintained and residents/businesses/agricultural traffic already have problems getting past the parked cars, this site would add to the problem, an additional pavement would narrow the road more. Some housing yes but 20 dwellings no.

I have lived in Buddens Green for twenty-eight years and my husband has lived in Beckley for all of his life. Our children grew up in the village and enjoyed the privileges of living in a peaceful, rural environment. As my home is adjacent to the proposed access for the BC1 allocation of approximately twenty new dwellings, I wish to object to the allocation of this land for the following reasons:

Buddens Green is a small close comprising eight houses. It is not a through-road designed to accommodate estate level traffic. It is extremely difficult to live in Beckley without a car as it only has one school, one pub, a village hall and a church; therefore, twenty new homes will generate a lot of extra traffic including delivery and service vehicles.

In the 2018 appeal decision (APP/U1430/W/18/3197448), the Planning Inspector identified the importance of the site's rural character. Building a development on this scale would urbanise and completely ruin this small, quiet, rural cul-de-sac. There is currently no evidence which demonstrates that the Buddens Green site is capable of safely accommodating the level of traffic which would be generated by twenty new homes. I really do not want to have forty cars driving past my house throughout the day – and this would very likely be the case if a development is built on this scale.

The previously dismissed scheme in 2018 was for sixteen dwellings on this land; the current allocation proposes twenty dwellings which is a significant increase in scale. The Planning Inspector stated that the proposed scheme in 2018 would harm the High Weald AONB, erode an important open gap, undermine the dispersed settlement pattern and introduce suburbanising characteristics. The current proposal would intensify all these issues which were found unacceptable on a smaller scale. Relocating the development further into the field would not remove the Inspector's previous conclusions regarding the intrinsic countryside value of the site.

Introducing the primary access to a development of twenty dwellings through Buddens Green would change its character from a quiet residential cul-de-sac to an estate access road. It would increase noise, traffic and general disturbance. Furthermore, it would completely alter the perception and function of the close which is surely in conflict with local plan policies which seek to protect the distinctive character of rural settlements.

The site is located in 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". In 2018, the Planning Inspector concluded that development on this site would fail that test. The current allocation would increase the degree of development and does not show how landscape harm could be avoided.

The supporting text for BC1 acknowledges flood risk constraints in parts of the field and surface water risk along the western boundary. Neighbours in Buddens Green have already sustained flooding which caused damage to their garden and an outbuilding, and our own garden has also been affected by flooding. Increased hard standing, access roads and roof coverage will affect drainage and will very likely exacerbate localised flooding.

In conclusion, the 2018 appeal decision demonstrates that development of this area would cause harm to a High Weald Area of Natural Beauty and, indeed, the character of Beckley. The current proposal increases the development to twenty dwellings when sixteen were previously denied. The current development proposal would increase vehicle movements and safety risks. It would introduce urbanising effects to a rural setting and increase drainage concerns.

The land on which Buddens Green was originally developed was donated by a local resident purely for the use of building affordable housing so that young residents of Beckley could stay here. It was never intended to be used to create an urban-style housing estate and this fact appears to have been forgotten.

The local primary school is very small and would not be able to support the numbers of children a new development of this size is likely to create. The increased population would also affect the local doctors' surgery in Northiam, which is already under pressure.

There is an existing retrospective planning application for stables directly behind the site allocated for the proposed new development. The owner of this land has already had a significant negative impact on the residents of Buddens Green by increasing traffic and noise, so I am extremely concerned about the impact a housing estate will have.

I am very fortunate to live in this beautiful, peaceful location and I feel very strongly about the proposed development which would completely change this environment, damage the wildlife, create noise and increase pollution. I would therefore be grateful if you would reconsider the development proposals.

Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations: Public Consultation under Regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended)

Thank you for your consultation on the above draft Local Plan.

We have a number of significant concerns with the quantum and scale of site allocations proposed in the draft Local Plan, in terms of impacts on the nationally designated High Weald National Landscape, such that we would consider the plan to conflict with paragraphs 189 and 190 of the NPPF, and thereby unsound in its present form. We would make the following comments:

Development Strategy

Notwithstanding the references in paras 3.9 and 3.21 of the draft plan regarding the protection of National Landscapes, and the ability to reduce housing requirements accordingly, we are extremely concerned by the proposed Development Strategy set out in section 5 of the draft plan, and the quantum of development proposed within the High Weald National Landscape.

Paragraph 189 of the NPPF sets out that ‘great weight’ should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which (along with National Parks & the Broads) ‘have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues’. It also sets out that ‘the scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited’ and that ‘development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.’

The proposed 2,055 number of new dwellings on sites within the High Weald National Landscape (over and above existing allocations in the 2019 DaSA) could in no way be described as ‘limited in extent’, nor could the fact that 23 of the site allocations are proposed for 30+ dwellings, (and 11 of those sites proposed for 60+ dwellings) be descried as ‘limited in scale’. At the broadest level, and notwithstanding the large area of Rother District that lies within the High Weald National Landscape, we therefore consider the allocations strategy at the broadest level would fail to comply with para 189 of the NPPF.

You will see from the Site Allocations comments later in this response, and our site-specific comments appended in table form to this response, that we consider a large number of the proposed site allocations would be harmful to the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape, and would fail to comply with para 189 of the NPPF, and, in a number of instances, para 190 too. We therefore consider that a number of the proposed site allocations should be deleted from the draft Local Plan, and the proposed number of dwellings in the housing requirement reduced accordingly.

We appreciate that the 2024 changes to the standard method for calculating objectively assed need has resulted in a larger OAN for Rother DC (described in paras 3.1-3.4 of the draft plan). However, importantly, the NPPF allows for strategic policies in Local Plans to provide for less than the housing need in certain circumstances, while the NPPG clarifies that Local housing need (calculated using the standard method as amended in December 2024) is not necessarily the same as the housing requirement that goes forward in a Local Plan.
This was confirmed by the Government in their published Government response to the proposed reforms to the NPPF (Government response for Questions 1 and 2) published 20th July 2024, which states:

“The standard method identifies the minimum number of homes needed and local planning authorities are expected to plan to meet their housing needs in full. However it is recognised that there may be local constraints on land and delivery that could justify a lower housing requirement figure.” (N.B. Underlining added for emphasis).

Accordingly, para 69 of the NPPF sets out that strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need can be met over the plan period. (N.B. bold added for emphasis)
That Government response also clarified that the NPPG had been updated accordingly. The NPPG (Housing and Economic Needs Assessment) confirms that:

“The standard method set out below identifies a minimum annual housing need figure, … It does not produce a housing requirement figure.” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 2a-002-20241212)

and explains the difference between local housing need and housing requirement, and clarifying that:

“The housing requirement is the minimum number of homes that a plan seeks to provide during the plan period. Once local housing need has been assessed, as set out in this guidance, authorities should then make an assessment of the amount of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified by evidence on land availability, constraints on development and any other relevant matters.” (Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 2a-040-20241212)

Paragraph 11 (b) (i) of the NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any unmet needs from neighbouring areas, unless “the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area”. The assets referred to are listed in footnote 7 and include National Landscapes, the relevant policies for which in the Framework being 189 and 190.

Accordingly, the NPPG (natural Environment) clarifies that, with regard to National Landscapes:

“The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the scale and extent of development in these areas should be limited, in view of the importance of conserving and enhancing their landscapes and scenic beauty. Its policies for protecting these areas may mean that it is not possible to meet objectively assessed needs for development in full through the plan-making process, and they are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas…” (Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 8-041-20190721.) (bold text added for emphasis)

Whilst we acknowledge the intention to seek to meet as far as possible the OAN, this must be carried out in the context of the limited scale and extent of development in National Landscapes required by the NPPF, and within the context of the ‘great weight’ to be given to conserving and enhancing their landscape and scenic beauty.
Further, this must be carried out in a way which is compliant with the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024-2029 This statutory document is adopted by all the relevant local authorities with land in the High Weald National Landscape, including Rother District Council, as their policy for the management of the area and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it, and is a material consideration for planning applications affecting the HWNL.

With particular regard to the High Weald National Landscape, Management Plan Settlement Action ‘h’ sets out that partners will “Pursue landscape-led positive planning approaches to settlement planning and housing delivery in the AONB, seeking to prioritise the delivery of new housing primarily through small-scale development consistent with AONB character, recognising the potential for harm through the cumulative effects of separate developments on the designated landscape”

Rother District Council has had considerable success over the last couple of years, including since the publishing of the new standard methodology for OAN, in defending housing development appeals in the HWNL, with Inspectors agreeing with the Council’s assessment of harms of specific proposals on the landscape character and natural beauty of the HWNL, and that such harms meant that policies of the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The same logic can and should therefore confidently be applied to the consideration of proposed sites under NPPF para 11(d)(i).

Major Development

With regard to the subject of major development in the HWNL in site allocations, we are particularly concerned by para 6.6. of the ‘Draft Development Stategy for Rother’, which, while recognising that the NPPF confirms that major development in National Landscapes should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, states ”The need for housing, including affordable housing, in sustainable locations within the district could potentially be an exceptional circumstance that could allow for a major development within the HWNL.”.

To justify major development on the basis of meeting objectively assessed housing needs for the local planning authority area is a circular argument at plan-making stage, because the impact of the scale and distribution of development on the National Landscape should be taken into account in deciding the level of housing provision (NPPF paras 69 and 11(d)(i)). If such housing levels can only be achieved by allocating major development in the NL, which by definition will have “a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated” then this is a good indicator that the impact on the National Landscape provides “a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area” as provided for in NPPF paragraph 11.

Paragraph 190 of the NPPF sets out that within National Landscapes, planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Whilst paragraph 190 specifically refers to planning permissions, it has also been considered relevant by Local Plan Inspectors to allocations within Local Plans.1 Legal advice provided to the South Downs National Park Authority by Landmark Chambers also concluded that “it would arguably amount to an error of law to fail to consider paragraph 116 (now 190) at the site allocations stage of plan making for the National Park. The consequence of doing so would be to risk allocating land for major development that was undeliverable because it was incapable of meeting the major development test in the NPPF”2.

We would consider a large number (some 16) of the site allocations proposed in the draft plan to constitute major development under the NPPF definition in footnote 64 of paragraph 190. As such, there would be a presumption against the allocation of these sites for development, and they are considered in more detail in the individual site comments below and appended table. In summary it is considered that the inclusion of the majority of these major sites would render the current plan unsound, as it would conflict with the NPPF.

Proposed draft Site Allocations

We are extremely concerned that sites with the HWNL have been proposed in this draft local plan prior to the carrying out of any detailed Landscape Capacity Studies, Landscape Sensitivity Studies or Landscape Visual Assessments, as part of the evidence base. We consider any proposed site allocations to be premature in the absence of such work.

We note that some sites have been considered in the HELAA Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (September 2022), however, this work is very brief, just one or two paragraphs per site plus a table, and we do not consider this is a sufficiently robust or detailed assessment of the impacts of the sites; the Site Assessment Table doesn’t assess the sensitivity of the sites in the HWNL against the AONB Management Plan key character components of natural beauty, and includes no map or photographic based assessment. Also, along with sensitivity assessments, those sheets also assign a range of ‘value’ to each site, including those within the HWNL (high, high/medium/medium etc) – whereas as designated NLs they have already been assigned the highest level of value by government (see Landscape Institute’s GLVIA3 Notes & Clarifications 5(7). Furthermore, in some instances the cautionary conclusions of the HELAA LSA do not seem to have informed the proposed allocations.

For any sites within, or affecting the setting of the National Landscapes, site assessment work needs to take into account the impact of those potential sites on the purposes of the designation, taking into account the HWNL (AONB) Management Plan. Planning Principle 1 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024-2029 gives advice on the type of assessments that should inform local plans.

Decisions on allocating sites within or affecting the setting of National Landscapes requires a robust understanding of landscape including the history and settlement patterns of the wider landscape. Site-specific landscape sensitivity studies and landscape and visual assessments and are an important part of this, to inform the principle of allocation, the appropriate quantum and location of development, the extent of site coverage, any mitigation strategies, e.g. landscape buffers and their appropriate location and size, and to consider any other site-specific issues.

A key concern is that we note that for a number of the proposed site allocations, the ‘site specific development requirements’ in the draft local plan mention the need for development to be informed by a landscape sensitivity assessment. However, this is too late in the process, the Landscape Sensitivity Study needs to be completed first, to inform the allocation process, not post-allocation. Moreover, the LSS needs to be prepared objectively by the LPA.

No allocation should be being proposed until the above work is completed -it is wholly insufficient to simply include a reference in the policy supporting text (as in the current draft) that ‘”It is within the High Weald National Landscape and therefore a sensitive form of development is required in line with Local Plan policies”– in order to align with the requirements of NPPF para 189, impacts on the setting of the HWNL need to be robustly considered prior to allocating a site; firstly regarding the principle of the allocation; the location and scale of development in relation to the HWNL, and secondly to inform/test the quantum of development that might be appropriate in such a location.

Additionally, any site allocations proposed for grassland sites in the HWNL should also be subject to grassland surveys, and if found to be unimproved grassland these should not continue to be allocated for development in the Reg 19 version, since this is an important habitat type within the HWNL, and an important part of its landscape character and natural beauty.

We consider there therefore needs to be considerable further site-specific work undertaken to inform the next iteration of the draft local plan. We understand that the next iteration is intended to be a Reg 19 version with consultation scheduled for the autumn, for submission in December under the current Local Plans regime. However, in view of the additional work needed in relation to the proposed sites, and our comments on the site allocations below, we consider this would be premature, and the timescale to be unrealistic, and instead we consider a further Reg 18 consultation would be more appropriate.

Densities

We note that para 5.16-5.26 of the draft Local Plan deal with the matter of densities in residential development. Whilst in principle we have no issue with higher densities – High Weald settlements are typically fairly high density in village cores- it is important to recognise that this is through their being populated with tight-knit streetscapes of smaller dwellings. In order to meet Settlement Objectives S1 and S2 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan, we consider that guidance, either in a general density policy and/or the site-specific policies, will need to clarify this, so as to manage developer expectations and avoid scenarios where schemes are submitted consisting of high numbers of detached/semi-detached buildings packed in close proximity to each other, as that would constitute an approach and grain that would be discordant with High Weald settlement pattern and streetscape character.

Site Specific Policies

Further to the site specific assessment work, and to ensure that clear and realistic expectations for each site are set, with regard to the High Weald AONB Management Plan, and the Council’s duty under section 85 of the CRoW Act, we advise that the site-specific policies for all those sites proposed within the HWNL (and those affecting its setting) included in the next iteration of the draft Local Plan should:

• include maps/plans setting guiding principles/parameters for development (including extent of site coverage, building heights, and the retention of any existing wooded boundaries, and enhancement of these where appropriate for mitigation measures), and
• refer to the HWNL in the ‘Site specific development requirements’, and include in those requirements that proposals need to reference the principles in the HW Housing Design Guide, and that lighting proposals (including highways lighting) to be based on the HWNL Dark Skies Planning Advice Note.

Individual proposed sites comments

In the light of the absence of a detailed landscape evidence base, the appended table represents our initial comments on the draft proposed sites; however, with some we are able to recognise significant harms to the HWNL even without the further work, and these are highlighted red in the table as sites that, at this stage, we object to being allocated for development.

Overall, you will see that we consider a number of sites would cause significant harm to the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape, would conflict with objectives of the HW AONB Management Plan 2024-2029, and would conflict with policy 189 of the NPPF, resulting in the plan being unsound, and therefore should not be allocated for development in the next iteration of the draft plan. These are: BT1 (in part), BT8, BT10, BC1, BR3, BW3, BW4, BWC1, EC2, EC3, FW2, GU6, HG4, IK1, IK2, NR2, PE1, PL1, SD11, SC2, and TC1. A summary of our reasons for arriving at these conclusions is included in the appended table. This list includes a number of sites that we consider should be considered ‘major development’ in the HWNL under the provisions of NPPF para 190, and for which there do not appear to be exceptional circumstances (see our earlier general comments in this response). However, the absence of red highlight on other sites in the table (or that they are not included in the above list) does not mean that we support the allocation, rather that at this stage we are unable to provide a definitive view on either the principle of development or the quantum proposed, without the further landscape assessment work being carried out (and we set this out for those sites).

Legislative Requirements

Lastly I would also draw to your attention Section 85 of the CRoW Act (as amended by the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act in December 2023) sets out that ‘relevant authorities’, in exercising or performing any function that affect National Landscapes in England, “must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”3

Within the planning context, ‘relevant authorities’ are the Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, along with Parish Councils producing Neighbourhood Plans, and the duty applies to all aspects of the planning process, including decisions relating to site allocations in Local Plans etc. More information for LPAs on complying with the new duty in the planning policy plan-making process is available at CRoW-s.85-duty-guidance-for-LPAs_NLA-Briefing-Nov-24.pdf

Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) will normally mean avoiding harm, and conserving and enhancing the character components identified in the AONB Management Plan; supporting the Management Plan Objectives as set out for each of these; and following any Management Plan Actions set out for each.

It is therefore important that this new duty is reflected in the language and content of the Local Plan throughout, including in the commitment to any particular housing requirement figure, the spatial strategy, policy direction and ambition, and the evaluation of any proposed site allocations.

The above comments are advisory and are the professional views of the HWNL Unit’s Planning & Design Advisor on the potential impacts on the High Weald landscape. They are not necessarily the views of the HWNL Joint Advisory Committee.


Please see attached documents including HWNL response letter and Appendix 1.

Comments on:BC2
* There is not enough water available at the moment to run my factory without constant issues from low pressure..
* Constant issues with electrical power cuts. (unreliable supply)
*Gas, I paid £70K to upgrade the gas supply to my factory, I don't believe there is enough capacity for another 20 houses.
*Sewers, the sewage plant in Beckley is already failing on a regular basis.
*Hobbs Lane does not have the capacity for extra movements or parking.
*There is no spare land to link the footway without causing a severe pinch point in the lane.
*Lorries need room to enter and leave Ebrofrost unobstructed by parked vehicles.
*Public transport is appalling.
*Every development built now days has too many houses and not enough parking spaces, cars parked on the lane will cause major issues for lorry access.
*Roadworks for sewage, footpath will cause chaos for lorries and staff.

See attached.

I object to the Draft Plan for Beckley and Four Oaks in which there are no plans for any development in the village of Beckley.
The proposed plans would increase the number of dwellings in Four Oaks by around 17% which would constitute an over development and as such have low sustainability
Four Oaks has no services whereas Beckley does have limited services.
BC3 is a small on the Northern side of Main Street. Four Oaks is characterized by undeveloped gaps where the open countryside can be seen.
The proposed development for this site of 13 dwellings would not be in keeping with the existing built environment and represents an encroachment to open countryside.

Having read the comprehensive "Response from CPRE Sussex to the Reg18 Consultation on the Rother Local Plan to 2042", I confirm that I fully support their objection to the proposed development of BC3 on the grounds that the draft proposal totally contradicts the unsustainable location by Rother's own evidence in the Sustainability Study 2024.

Site BC1 - Beckley & Four Oaks - land south/west of Buddens Green - Inappropriate planning proposals - Sequel No. 10?

Once again this greenfield site is proposed for housing. It floods, and provides an important gap in settlement, but is still the subject of new proposals despite numerous refused planning applications and appeals in the past - it has more sequels than the local cinema!

The reasons for its unsuitability have been well rehearsed, but include:-
* the site floods frequently, and in periods of heavy rain we see run off on the B2088 (Main Street); the additional 20 dwellings (with associated hard landscaping) are likely only to exacerbate this issue.
* this greenfield site is in the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB) and outside the current development boundary.
*such areas need protection - not development. This proposal for effectively "a small estate" in a currently agricultural setting is out of character for this small village.
* the site provides a gap in the development along Main Street - adding to the village's distinctive layout and charm. Whilst development boundaries may be revised as part of the new local plan - I hope these will reflect the current settlements.
* I see the proposal is that 40% of the site should be affordable housing. This rarely materialises.
* Beckley has no shops (unless you want to buy a Garage Door); no Doctors or Dentist and a poor bus service (moving bus stops won't fix this if busses into Rye after 8.15 am are every two hours at best.
*the character of Buddens Green - currently a cul-de-sac of 8 properties - will completely change. Whilst a small extension was envisaged (6 houses) in the current local plan - this proposal will create traffic safety issues for existing residents; and add to traffic on Main Street.
* for completeness, I should declare an interest, as a neighbouring property owner.

I am worried about the traffic implications for Main Street. I have had two cars seriously damaged by passing traffic while they were parked and empty on the street outside my house in 2020 and 2022. In both cases the Police were involved because of possible dangerous/careless driving on the part of those driving through the village. Increased traffic will worsen the situation. Parking is also a real issue. I have one car and for those of us who have no driveway it can be difficult to park outside our houses due to multiple car ownership and people waiting to pick up passengers from the local bus stop. As we have no street lighting this is a problem for elderly and vulnerable people trying to park at night.
I do think we need more affordable housing in the village but the road is already far too busy and a cut through for very large lorries and farm vehicles. There are no safety controls in terms of speed apart from signs which are largely ignored.

I am writing to stat my objections to development in the village of Beckley. The proposed sites of BC1 BC2 and BC3
what constitutes affordable housing? Would a house built in 2026 and sold in 2027 for instance still be affordable to the next buyer? Houses are bought as an investment are they not?
The services in Beckley, which are not listed, are a small primary school, a pre school and a village hall. There is a pub on the outskirts but no amenities to serve an increased population. The bus service has been reported to be reduced and so cars will be needed to get to the shops, doctors etc. BC3 is reported to have minor areas at risk of surface water flooding and even a minor risk should alert developers to not building on such a site, given the reports of climate change and increasing floods.

Beckley has insufficient infrastructure to support 53 new houses. There is no shop, no Drs and very poor bus connections. Residents have to drive to service their daily needs which goes against Rother's net zero target.
BC1 - a settlement of 6-8 dwellings, mirroring the existing houses in Buddens green could provide the right size houses for young families, extending the site further and planning for 20 houses is excessive, especially if only 8 of them are classed as affordable. The site is liable to flooding which would only be worse with this much development.
BC2 - Being brownfield land is positive and I would support some development on this site but only on the existing brownfield site and only a small number of houses (5-10 max).
BC3 - access to this site would be difficult and being greenfield development on it should be avoided

Comments refer to BC1:
Proposal is too large with too many dwellings in an AONB. It would cause significant light pollution with unshielded porch and security lights, and cause increased light trespass, impacting nocturnal animals. It would cause significant environmental impact in an AONB, the work itself in constructing the new dwellings would be detrimental to surrounding wildlife with great disruption to it caused by the noise and commotion. The additional residences would not be protecting the wildlife - it would be the opposite (I am unsure if the population of rare red kites in the nearby woods would stay if new housing were to be built right next to their homes.) There would be a general biodiversity net gain failure. To invoke the Great Weight Protection, the proposal should not go ahead here. Scenic views in the AONB would be eroded. BC1 also has evidenced flood risks.

Beckley lacks the required infrastructure to support 20 new homes on this AONB proposed site. The number of homes should be reduced by at least half to address the above issues.

BC1 - the Parish Council is in discussions with HASCO with a view to developing up to 9 affordable homes on the field behind the current Buddens Green site. BC1 looks to extend this site to accommodate 20 homes by extending into the neighbouring field. Beckley Parish Council is concerned about this due to:
The extensive flooding that is experienced in the field next to Buddens Green as during winter the pond increases to an extent that the proposed site would be extensively flooded. See appendix 1 for photographs which evidence the extent of the flooding and the volume of water already being displaced across the road which would be exacerbated should the scope for flooding within the field be reduced. Any significant work to manage the water and speed up its removal will undoubtedly lead to flooding of properties across the road on route to the ditch which drains this area of the village behind the houses on the northern side to the road.
The concentration of 20 houses in addition to the 12 already in Buddens Green will change the nature of this central location within the village. As has been stated previously the Parish Council would prefer more numerous but smaller developments throughout the village eg along the lanes as well as Main Street.
BC2 - the proposed site in Hobbs Lane is partially a brownfield site, but has significant challenges that need to be taken into account
The proposed density is too high, and previous plans have not adequately catered for the number of vehicles that the scheme would generate. Hobbs Lane is the access to 108 homes as well as having local business. There is significant parking along the road since the rural nature of the village and restricted bus services (which are due to be reduced further) requires households to have multiple vehicles. Also, the houses on the A268 known as Roberts Row do not have off road parking and it isn’t possible to safely park on the main road, so they are forced to use Hobbs Lane.Therefore this is already very congested. A lower density of housing should be applied to ensure that there is sufficient parking in any scheme to not further exacerbate an existing issue.
The plan’s observations about the site specify that a footway would be required. A footway of the statutory width would halve the size of the already narrow lane, and therefore isn’t viable.
The site marked includes the property named Donkey Lodge, which the current owner has no inclination to sell, and this appears to be pivotal to developing the site.
The narrow road and dense parking from the site to the junction with the A268 mean that the housing development would have an adverse impact on the local businesses during any development, thereby threatening their viability.
The amenities within the village are located in Main Street. Therefore anyone from the development would need to cross the A268, and there is no traffic island to protect pedestrians.
It is 1/4 mile from the proposed site to the bus stop for the school bus, requiring children to cross the busy main road, and circa 1.5 miles to the recreation ground, pre school and primary school. Therefore development on this site would increase car journeys, undermining the green ethos of Rother District Council.
The local infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the existing population of Hobbs Lane. There were power outages in the summer of 2025 as demand exceeded the capacity of the local infrastructure, and the site is below the level of the sewerage treatment works therefore without significant upgrade, which has not been muted, there will be repeats of the sewerage works overflowing as shown in appendix 2.
BC3 - this is a welcome example of spacing development through the village. However, the proposed density will mean that there is unlikely to be sufficient parking and would result on additional parking and congestion on Main Street. The Parish Council would therefore consider that a development of 8 houses would be more in keeping.

Ref: BC1, BC2, BC3

The rural village of Beckley lacks the required infrastructure to support the proposed total of 60 new homes for development. The land is also an AONB. The total number of homes should be reduced by at least half in each case, to protect the village's limited and already over stretched infrastructure.

Regulation 18 Consultation – Policy BC1
Land South & West of Buddens Green, Beckley Four Oaks

I write as the owner of a property directly opposite the proposed allocation site on Main Street, Beckley. While the property is now tenanted, we had our family there and retain long-standing knowledge of local conditions, particularly in relation to drainage and the character of the surrounding area.


1. Planning History – 2018 Appeal Dismissal

The Planning Inspector’s decision dated 29 November 2018 (Appeal Ref APP/U1430/W/18/3197448; Application RR/2016/3286/P) dismissed a proposal for 16 dwellings on this site.

The Inspector concluded that development would:
• Erode an important open gap maintaining the dispersed settlement pattern;
• Harm the rural character and appearance of the locality;
• Fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB;
• Fundamentally alter the character of this part of Beckley.

Crucially, the Inspector determined that harm to the AONB provided a clear and overriding reason for dismissal, notwithstanding the absence of a five-year housing land supply at that time.

The current draft allocation proposes 20 dwellings — exceeding the scale of the dismissed scheme — yet no evidence is presented within the Regulation 18 material to demonstrate that the fundamental landscape and character constraints identified by the Inspector have materially changed.


2. High Weald National Landscape – Conflict with National Policy

The site lies within the High Weald National Landscape.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
• Paragraph 182 requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in designated landscapes;
• Such areas have the highest status of protection in relation to these matters.

The 2018 Inspector found that development on this site would harm the intrinsic character of the AONB.

The proposed allocation not only revisits that conclusion but intensifies it through increased scale.

Relocating development further into the field does not overcome the Inspector’s concerns. The earlier findings were not limited to frontage development but addressed the contribution of the site as a whole to the wider landscape setting and settlement pattern.

Development extending into the field would:
• Introduce built form and roofscape into currently open pasture;
• Alter the rural backdrop when viewed from Main Street;
• Suburbanise the perception of this part of the village.

The increased number of dwellings would exacerbate these impacts.

In the absence of compelling and robust evidence demonstrating that development would conserve and enhance the National Landscape, the proposed allocation risks repeating the conflict previously identified.


3. Settlement Pattern and Local Character

The Inspector placed significant weight on the established linear form of development along Main Street and the role of the site as an important open gap between distinct parts of the settlement.

Moving development further into the field does not resolve this issue. Instead, it introduces:
• Depth and backland-style development beyond the established pattern;
• A more suburban form inconsistent with the dispersed character of the High Weald;
• Encroachment into currently open countryside beyond the historic development boundary.

The proposal therefore remains fundamentally at odds with the prevailing settlement structure.


4. Flood Risk and Surface Water – Premature Allocation

The supporting material acknowledges that:
• The northern part of the site is affected by flooding;
• Surface water constraints exist along the western boundary;
• Sustainable drainage measures will be required.

Our property has already experienced frequent and significant drainage pressures during periods of sustained rainfall, including:
• Surface water accumulation;
• Elevated groundwater conditions;
• Runoff associated with highway drainage.

During a significant rainfall event in December 2024, water levels rose to a point where ingress into our property was a material risk. Emergency measures were required to manage the immediate situation.

While interim mitigation measures have been undertaken, the underlying issues remain unresolved and are sensitive to further periods of heavy rainfall.

The site currently functions as permeable pasture. The introduction of built development, including dwellings, access roads, and hardstanding, would inevitably alter infiltration rates and surface water dynamics.

There is a clear risk that development could:
• Increase the volume and rate of runoff;
• Concentrate flows toward lower-lying areas;
• Exacerbate existing off-site flooding pressures.

Under NPPF paragraphs 166–168:
• Development should not increase flood risk elsewhere;
• Sites must be safe for their lifetime;
• Flood risk should be appropriately assessed at plan-making stage.

At present, no detailed hydrological modelling or catchment-wide assessment has been provided to demonstrate that development could proceed without worsening existing conditions.

Given the acknowledged constraints and observed local conditions, allocation at this stage appears premature.


Overall Conclusion

Given:
• The clear and recent 2018 appeal dismissal on landscape and character grounds;
• The increased scale of development now proposed;
• The site’s sensitive location within the High Weald National Landscape;
• The presence of unresolved and locally evidenced drainage constraints;

I respectfully request that the Council reconsider the allocation of site BC1.

In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances since the 2018 decision, the proposed allocation conflicts with national policy relating to designated landscapes and flood risk.

Many thanks for your consideration,

See attached.

I wish to object to the proposed allocation of site BC1, Land South and West of Buddens Green.
This site has already been tested through the planning process. In 2018, the Planning Inspector dismissed development here, finding it would harm the High Weald AONB, close an important open gap, and damage the character of Beckley. Those concerns have not been resolved. If anything, they are increased by the proposal for 20 dwellings.

The site lies within a protected National Landscape, where great weight must be given to conserving landscape character. Extending development into open pasture would introduce an urbanising form of development that is out of keeping with the village’s established pattern.
I am also very concerned about drainage. Our property opposite has experienced serious flooding during heavy rainfall, requiring emergency action. These issues remain unresolved.

I am registering my objection to building on a greenfield site BC3 on Main Street Beckley. The village is described by local councillors discussing planning as a Linear village with gaps. If building is allowed in that small field that would destroy the open nature of the village and it would lose its identity as a linear village. I have absolutely no objection to building houses on the brownfield site in Hobbs Lane, where Manroys used to be. That area is now a mess. And I also have been aware that more houses were always going to be built as part of the extension to the Buddens Green estate but the loss of the greenfield site known as BC3 would be awful. It would set a precedent that would be hard to stop. In that every landowner who owned fields along Beckley Main Street would be putting in planning applications for their fields as a result of allowing that one to go ahead.
Unrestricted house building in Northiam and Peasmarsh has changed both those villages , not for the better. Beckley would lose its character as a linear village with gaps and its beautiful rural aspects as you travel through the village.

I am registering my objection to building on a greenfield site BC3 on Main Street Beckley. The village is described by local councillors discussing planning as a Linear village with gaps. If building is allowed in that small field that would destroy the open nature of the village and it would lose its identity as a linear village. I have absolutely no objection to building houses on the brownfield site in Hobbs Lane, where Manroys used to be. That area is now a mess. And I also have been aware that more houses were always going to be built as part of the extension to the Buddens Green estate but the loss of the greenfield site known as BC3 would be awful. It would set a precedent that would be hard to stop. In that every landowner who owned fields along Beckley Main Street would be putting in planning applications for their fields as a result of allowing that one to go ahead.
Unrestricted house building in Northiam and Peasmarsh has changed both those villages , not for the better. Beckley would lose its character as a linear village with gaps and its beautiful rural aspects as you travel through the village.

Beckley
 BC3 – Oaklea Cottages to the west – 15 dwellings. Ribbon development on south side. Extension westwards of Four Oaks hamlet.

Objections to BC3 of the Draft Plan
This would be an incursion into the High Weald National Landscape (AONB) and break the historical ribbon and linear feature of Main Street.

Unsustainable locations, by Rother’s own evidence
The following sites are in communities classified by Rother’s own Settlement Sustainability Study of 2024 as having low sustainability; as such, they cannot amount to sustainable developments, and nor can they be evidenced .

The water table is high and we regularly have problems with sewage bubbling up on to pavements because the old Victorian sewers can’t cope with the existing housing in Main Street Beckley.

The sewage works that lay behind the Village Hall was completely under water due to the heavy rainfall we experienced this Winter. I have photos to back this information up.

The proposed field has Sedges and rushes which are characteristic of damp areas and are common on wet meadows. Soft Rush in particular is a common component of wet meadows. These grasses can be seen at the front of the field which falls under BC3.

We have no shops or doctors surgery only one primary school where pupils are driven to school by their parents causing endless traffic jams morning and afternoon.

All of the above are my objections to BC3

See attached.

See attached.