I wish to strongly object to the proposed development PE3 on the Rother plan for Peasmarsh. The reality is that this is an area with major flooding and water logging problems. From November to March our back gardens are waterlogged and inaccessible. There are 7 streams which rise in the field. Covering half the field with concrete will only make things worse. There is severe congestion and road safety issues already without the additional traffic trying to enter the main street. We regularly have power cuts/water outages in the village as the networks cannot cope. My understanding was that no development was to be considered until the sewers had been updated after the previous applications were made. This has still not been done. This is not affordable housing for local people it is overpriced exec homes. This was not part of the Neighbourhood plan either.

The proposed developments in Peasmarsh represent over 20% increase in the housing provision currently within the village. This will drastically alter the way and standard of living within the village detrimentally. There is a major issue with the current services provision. We have constant and ongoing power outages because we are on a spur. Flooding across the whole area is a big concern as we are a "marsh". No works have been done to alleviate this to date. School Lane (PE3) is a huge safety concern with the amount of cars parking on the pavement obstructing the parents ability to walk their children to school safely without the 20% increase in traffic these plans will bring. The same issues are across the Malthouse Lane area too (PE5). The sewer network is regularly breaking and causing flooding in the village, there has been no work/investment in this area for decades.

1. The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.

The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. Just changing the name doesn’t make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation. If it is destroyed once, it is destroyed forever. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

5. Regarding Infrastructure needs, my initial comments relate solely to Utility and Energy – with specific reference to the Peasmarsh area - which are the fundamental pre-requisites for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.
The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.

Old house by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drain arrangements that have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding. Any post holes fil immediately with water. This high water-table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.
Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

In addition to these physical issues, it must be pointed out that the current Village School is oversubscribed and has no facilities to manage the large number of additional children the foreseen developments would generate.

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.
SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.

Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.
Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development. The proposals would increase the size of the village population by 15-20%, completely changing its’ character. The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040. Why should a village in the AONB/High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole.
Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.
The wishes of the village, in the democratic consultations only recently, clearly expressed the wish that developments should be small-scale or infill. These proposals are the opposite of this.
It is also worth pointing out, that Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other East Sussex villages. Any argument therefore that large scale development is needed is incorrect. Bringing in people who would prefer to live in an urban environment into a rural village with a very limited and expensive bus service and no access to local employment is something without benefit to any of the parties involved.
The last exercise that created social housing in The Maltings Peasmarsh ended up – contrary to early statements – with few local people being housed and the council placing people from Hastings and much further afield. There is no evidence that this would not happen again.

47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.
First PE3 Tanyard Field.
You refer inaccurately and laughably to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.
In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by decisive village democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.
The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.
• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.
• There would be a general loss of amenity, privacy and quiet enjoyment for the large number of village houses within sight and sound of Tanyard Field.
• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.
• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.
• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.
• The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the North, making it totally unsuitable for housing and helping to generate the drainage problem referred to below.
• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained”.
• Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village. The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh. Some years ago, the turf was stripped off Tanyard for unknown reasons and this greatly increased the problems – perhaps due to the clay soil being further compacted.
• The vehicular access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.
• Any new housing would result in a substantial increase in car use and traffic generally, which is contrary to national environmental and transport policies.
• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
• This ancient green field site, with ancient woodland to the South, and a copse at its’ centre, supports multiple species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such as Bats, Hedgehogs, Tawny Owls, Woodpeckers and many others.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment.

67. Regarding Development Strategy Options and Preferred Approaches in Appendix 3, I do NOT agree with the elimination of option SD09 which is at least worthy of further investigation on a case-by-case basis. However, it has to be remembered that no desk-chosen arbitrary option is necessarily going to produce a figure for a community that is achievable on the ground given local constraints.

1. The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.

The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. Just changing the name doesn’t make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation. If it is destroyed once, it is destroyed forever. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

5. Regarding Infrastructure needs, my initial comments relate solely to Utility and Energy – with specific reference to the Peasmarsh area - which are the fundamental pre-requisites for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.
The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.

Old house by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drain arrangements that have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding. Any post holes fil immediately with water. This high water-table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.
Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

In addition to these physical issues, it must be pointed out that the current Village School is oversubscribed and has no facilities to manage the large number of additional children the foreseen developments would generate.

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.
SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.

Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.
Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development. The proposals would increase the size of the village population by 15-20%, completely changing its’ character. The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040. Why should a village in the AONB/High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole.
Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.
The wishes of the village, in the democratic consultations only recently, clearly expressed the wish that developments should be small-scale or infill. These proposals are the opposite of this.
It is also worth pointing out, that Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other East Sussex villages. Any argument therefore that large scale development is needed is incorrect. Bringing in people who would prefer to live in an urban environment into a rural village with a very limited and expensive bus service and no access to local employment is something without benefit to any of the parties involved.
The last exercise that created social housing in The Maltings Peasmarsh ended up – contrary to early statements – with few local people being housed and the council placing people from Hastings and much further afield. There is no evidence that this would not happen again.

47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.
First PE3 Tanyard Field.
You refer inaccurately and laughably to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.
In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by decisive village democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.
The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.
• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.
• There would be a general loss of amenity, privacy and quiet enjoyment for the large number of village houses within sight and sound of Tanyard Field.
• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.
• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.
• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.
• The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the North, making it totally unsuitable for housing and helping to generate the drainage problem referred to below.
• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained”.
• Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village. The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh. Some years ago, the turf was stripped off Tanyard for unknown reasons and this greatly increased the problems – perhaps due to the clay soil being further compacted.
• The vehicular access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.
• Any new housing would result in a substantial increase in car use and traffic generally, which is contrary to national environmental and transport policies.
• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
• This ancient green field site, with ancient woodland to the South, and a copse at its’ centre, supports multiple species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such as Bats, Hedgehogs, Tawny Owls, Woodpeckers and many others.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment.

67. Regarding Development Strategy Options and Preferred Approaches in Appendix 3, I do NOT agree with the elimination of option SD09 which is at least worthy of further investigation on a case-by-case basis. However, it has to be remembered that no desk-chosen arbitrary option is necessarily going to produce a figure for a community that is achievable on the ground given local constraints.

1. The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.
The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

5. Regarding Infrastructure needs, my comments relate solely to Utility and Energy – with specific reference to the Peasmarsh area - which are the fundamental pre-requisites for any acceptable development.

The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.

The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. The Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.
Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.

SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.
Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.

Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development.

Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

First PE3 Tanyard Field.
You refer ludicrously to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.

In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.
The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.
• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.
• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.
• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.
• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.
• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained.
• The access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.
• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment.

67. Regarding Development Strategy Options and Preferred Approaches in Appendix 3, I do NOT agree with the elimination of option SD09 which is at least worthy of further investigation on a case-by-case basis. However, it has to be remembered that no desk-chosen arbitrary option is necessarily going to produce a figure for a community that is achievable on the ground given local constraints.

1. The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.
The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

5. Regarding Infrastructure needs, my comments relate solely to Utility and Energy – with specific reference to the Peasmarsh area - which are the fundamental pre-requisites for any acceptable development.

The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.

The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. The Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.
Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.

SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.
Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.

Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development.

Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

First PE3 Tanyard Field.
You refer ludicrously to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.

In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.
The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.
• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.
• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.
• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.
• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.
• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained.
• The access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.
• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment.

67. Regarding Development Strategy Options and Preferred Approaches in Appendix 3, I do NOT agree with the elimination of option SD09 which is at least worthy of further investigation on a case-by-case basis. However, it has to be remembered that no desk-chosen arbitrary option is necessarily going to produce a figure for a community that is achievable on the ground given local constraints.

1.The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.

The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. Just changing the name doesn’t make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation. If it is destroyed once, it is destroyed forever. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

2. Regarding Infrastructure needs.

The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.

The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.

Old house by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drain arrangements that have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding. Any holes dug fill immediately with water. This high water-table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.

Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.
In addition to these physical issues, it must be pointed out that the current Village School is oversubscribed and has no facilities to manage the large number of additional children the foreseen developments would generate.

The two local Doctors’ surgeries (Rye and Northiam) are taking on no further patients. Where is medical treatment going to be obtained?

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.

SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.
Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.
 
13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.

Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development. The proposals would increase the size of the village population by 15-20%, completely changing its’ character. The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040. Why should a village in the AONB/High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole.

Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

The wishes of the village, in the democratic consultations only recently, clearly expressed the wish that developments should be small-scale or infill. These proposals are the opposite of this.
It is also worth pointing out, that Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other East Sussex villages. Any argument therefore that large scale development is needed is incorrect. Bringing in people who would prefer to live in an urban environment into a rural village with a very limited and expensive bus service and no access to local employment is something without benefit to any of the parties involved.

The last exercise that created social housing in The Maltings Peasmarsh ended up – contrary to early statements – with few local people being housed and the council placing people from Hastings and much further afield. There is no evidence that this would not happen again.

47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

First PE3 Tanyard Field.

You refer inaccurately and laughably to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.

In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by decisive village democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.

The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.

• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.

• There would be a general loss of amenity, privacy and quiet enjoyment for the large number of village houses within sight and sound of Tanyard Field.


• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.

• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.

• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.

• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.

• The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the North, making it totally unsuitable for housing and helping to generate the drainage problem referred to below.

• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained”.

• Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village. The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh. Tanyard is called locally “Soggy Meadow”. Some years ago the turf was stripped off the field for some reason and this made the problem significantly worse – perhaps due the clay soil being further compacted and the length of grass reduced.

• The vehicular access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.

• The exits of neighbouring drives are adjacent to this access and we have witnessed numerous near-misses when people are trying to get out onto the main road.

• Any new housing would result in a substantial increase in car use and traffic generally, which is contrary to national environmental and transport policies.

• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.

• This ancient green field site, with ancient woodland to the South, and a copse at its’ centre, supports multiple species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such as Bats, Hedgehogs, Tawny Owls, Woodpeckers and many others.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment. These units were built with EU money from Brussels with the express purpose of helping and promoting rural businesses. Despite Brexit, it would be a huge breach of faith to consider demolishing them now.

1.The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.

The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. Just changing the name doesn’t make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation. If it is destroyed once, it is destroyed forever. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

2. Regarding Infrastructure needs.

The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.

The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.

Old house by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drain arrangements that have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding. Any holes dug fill immediately with water. This high water-table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.

Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.
In addition to these physical issues, it must be pointed out that the current Village School is oversubscribed and has no facilities to manage the large number of additional children the foreseen developments would generate.

The two local Doctors’ surgeries (Rye and Northiam) are taking on no further patients. Where is medical treatment going to be obtained?

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.

SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.
Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.
 
13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.

Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development. The proposals would increase the size of the village population by 15-20%, completely changing its’ character. The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040. Why should a village in the AONB/High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole.

Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

The wishes of the village, in the democratic consultations only recently, clearly expressed the wish that developments should be small-scale or infill. These proposals are the opposite of this.
It is also worth pointing out, that Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other East Sussex villages. Any argument therefore that large scale development is needed is incorrect. Bringing in people who would prefer to live in an urban environment into a rural village with a very limited and expensive bus service and no access to local employment is something without benefit to any of the parties involved.

The last exercise that created social housing in The Maltings Peasmarsh ended up – contrary to early statements – with few local people being housed and the council placing people from Hastings and much further afield. There is no evidence that this would not happen again.

47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

First PE3 Tanyard Field.

You refer inaccurately and laughably to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.

In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by decisive village democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.

The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.

• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.

• There would be a general loss of amenity, privacy and quiet enjoyment for the large number of village houses within sight and sound of Tanyard Field.


• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.

• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.

• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.

• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.

• The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the North, making it totally unsuitable for housing and helping to generate the drainage problem referred to below.

• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained”.

• Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village. The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh. Tanyard is called locally “Soggy Meadow”. Some years ago the turf was stripped off the field for some reason and this made the problem significantly worse – perhaps due the clay soil being further compacted and the length of grass reduced.

• The vehicular access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.

• The exits of neighbouring drives are adjacent to this access and we have witnessed numerous near-misses when people are trying to get out onto the main road.

• Any new housing would result in a substantial increase in car use and traffic generally, which is contrary to national environmental and transport policies.

• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.

• This ancient green field site, with ancient woodland to the South, and a copse at its’ centre, supports multiple species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such as Bats, Hedgehogs, Tawny Owls, Woodpeckers and many others.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment. These units were built with EU money from Brussels with the express purpose of helping and promoting rural businesses. Despite Brexit, it would be a huge breach of faith to consider demolishing them now.

1. The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.

The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. Just changing the name doesn’t make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation. If it is destroyed once, it is destroyed forever. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

5. Regarding Infrastructure needs.

The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.

The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.

Old house by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drain arrangements that have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding. Any holes dug fill immediately with water. This high water-table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.

Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

In addition to these physical issues, it must be pointed out that the current Village School is oversubscribed and has no facilities to manage the large number of additional children the foreseen developments would generate.

The two local Doctors’ surgeries (Rye and Northiam) are taking on no further patients. Where is medical treatment going to be obtained?

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.

SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.
Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.

Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development. The proposals would increase the size of the village population by 15-20%, completely changing its’ character. The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040. Why should a village in the AONB/High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole.

Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

The wishes of the village, in the democratic consultations only recently, clearly expressed the wish that developments should be small-scale or infill. These proposals are the opposite of this.
It is also worth pointing out, that Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other East Sussex villages. Any argument therefore that large scale development is needed is incorrect. Bringing in people who would prefer to live in an urban environment into a rural village with a very limited and expensive bus service and no access to local employment is something without benefit to any of the parties involved.

The last exercise that created social housing in The Maltings Peasmarsh ended up – contrary to early statements – with few local people being housed and the council placing people from Hastings and much further afield. There is no evidence that this would not happen again.


47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

First PE3 Tanyard Field.

You refer inaccurately and laughably to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.

In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by decisive village democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.

The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.
• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.
• There would be a general loss of amenity, privacy and quiet enjoyment for the large number of village houses within sight and sound of Tanyard Field.
• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.
• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.
• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.
• The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the North, making it totally unsuitable for housing and helping to generate the drainage problem referred to below.
• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained”.
• Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village. The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh. Tanyard is called locally “Soggy Meadow”. Some years ago the turf was stripped off the field for some reason and this made the problem significantly worse – perhaps due the clay soil being further compacted and the length of grass reduced.
The vehicular access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.
• The exits of neighbouring drives are adjacent to this access and we have witnessed numerous near-misses when people are trying to get out onto the main road.
• Any new housing would result in a substantial increase in car use and traffic generally, which is contrary to national environmental and transport policies.
• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
• This ancient green field site, with ancient woodland to the South, and a copse at its’ centre, supports multiple species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such as Bats, Hedgehogs, Tawny Owls, Woodpeckers and many others.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment. These units were built with EU money from Brussels with the express purpose of helping and promoting rural businesses. Despite Brexit, it would be a huge breach of faith to consider demolishing them now.

1. The Strategic Spatial Objectives are sound – BUT they should not just be stated as pious intentions - they need to be honestly adhered to in the formulating of the plan.
In particular, Point 11 states “Deliver sustainable development ………… having regard to local context and character”. There are clear instances in the approach towards Peasmarsh for example, where this principle is clearly breached.

The Objectives do not include any mention of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now called the High Weald National Landscape. Cynics might assume that the change of name is entirely because the depredation of a “landscape” sounds so much more inoffensive than destroying “Natural Beauty”. Just changing the name doesn’t make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation. If it is destroyed once, it is destroyed forever. The Objective of preserving this should be added. This would clearly set out the context in which Chapter 6.2 can be read.

5. Regarding Infrastructure needs.

The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) – accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum – highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh.

The sewer system is grossly inadequate – the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. Southern Water have admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its’ capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary.

Old house by the main road have wells that never run dry and complicated drain arrangements that have been installed over the years in efforts to reduce flooding. Any holes dug fill immediately with water. This high water-table problem has been known for many years but no remedies have ever been proposed or undertaken.

Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure – some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

In addition to these physical issues, it must be pointed out that the current Village School is oversubscribed and has no facilities to manage the large number of additional children the foreseen developments would generate.

The two local Doctors’ surgeries (Rye and Northiam) are taking on no further patients. Where is medical treatment going to be obtained?

6. The Development Option SDO13 – A21 Corridor Growth seems sensible and should indeed be pursued.

SDO14 – filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the achievement of the development targets the plan defines.
Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13. The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise – conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground.

Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its’ capacity to absorb additional development. The proposals would increase the size of the village population by 15-20%, completely changing its’ character. The population of the UK is projected to rise by 7% by 2040. Why should a village in the AONB/High Weald National Landscape bear an increase twice that of the country as a whole.

Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village – despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted “commercial centres” in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

The wishes of the village, in the democratic consultations only recently, clearly expressed the wish that developments should be small-scale or infill. These proposals are the opposite of this.
It is also worth pointing out, that Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other East Sussex villages. Any argument therefore that large scale development is needed is incorrect. Bringing in people who would prefer to live in an urban environment into a rural village with a very limited and expensive bus service and no access to local employment is something without benefit to any of the parties involved.

The last exercise that created social housing in The Maltings Peasmarsh ended up – contrary to early statements – with few local people being housed and the council placing people from Hastings and much further afield. There is no evidence that this would not happen again.


47. I have major objections to two of the site allocations in Peasmarsh – PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

First PE3 Tanyard Field.

You refer inaccurately and laughably to this as a “new” site. This is nonsense. The Landowner has been seeking Planning Permission for this site, as a matter of certain knowledge, for more than 40 years and has repeatedly been rebuffed and rejected on appeal on at least one occasion. I hope that you will still be able to refer in your own files to the letter and document issued by Rother DC on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P which is the earliest reference I can find to development being rejected. All the reasons for rejection remain valid today and indeed in some cases are more serious than they were then.

In addition, this site was carefully investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the village working group and by independent consultants, and subsequently rejected. There can be no reason, other than the persistence of the Landowner, to ride roughshod over the PNDP – endorsed as it was by decisive village democratic referendum and accepted by Rother DC in April 2024.

The site is totally unsuitable for development on many grounds:

• The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its’ undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village. Development would have a catastrophic impact on the rural character of the area.
• The visual amenity of the entire village would also be thereby damaged.
• There would be a general loss of amenity, privacy and quiet enjoyment for the large number of village houses within sight and sound of Tanyard Field.
• Acceptance of the site would encourage other similarly unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
• The suggestion that the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naïve understanding of the issue. If the site went ahead, then this would be the thin end of the wedge. The Landowner has put forward various outlines for the site in recent years – the largest involved nearly 100 houses and relentless pressure would ensue to rise to this total.
• Any development would impact unfavourably on nearby listed buildings.
• The field has a historic right of way across the western end. For nearly a thousand years, villagers have used it to walk up to the church and the vista from this path would be irretrievably damaged.
• The field slopes very steeply downwards towards the North, making it totally unsuitable for housing and helping to generate the drainage problem referred to below.
• The major technical issue is the drainage of the site, which is totally wet. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street – see comments on Infrastructure in response to question 5. Your own letter of 1990 – reference above – states “the local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water is not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained”.
• Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village. The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh. Tanyard is called locally “Soggy Meadow”. Some years ago the turf was stripped off the field for some reason and this made the problem significantly worse – perhaps due the clay soil being further compacted and the length of grass reduced.
The vehicular access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road, where the 30mph speed limit is regularly ignored to the despair of villagers.
• The exits of neighbouring drives are adjacent to this access and we have witnessed numerous near-misses when people are trying to get out onto the main road.
• Any new housing would result in a substantial increase in car use and traffic generally, which is contrary to national environmental and transport policies.
• As stated repeatedly, the infrastructure around the site is completely inadequate for any further housing. The drains cannot cope. See copious photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
• This ancient green field site, with ancient woodland to the South, and a copse at its’ centre, supports multiple species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such as Bats, Hedgehogs, Tawny Owls, Woodpeckers and many others.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

This small development of light industrial and commercial units is of great value to many in Peasmarsh. Its’ loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work and it seems counterproductive to positively take steps to deter employment. These units were built with EU money from Brussels with the express purpose of helping and promoting rural businesses. Despite Brexit, it would be a huge breach of faith to consider demolishing them now.

Regarding PE5, 40 new flats ? Where is the people going to park there cars ? Its over crowded as it is. Also our current drainage cant cope due to the last development. Our roads are still not repaired from the last development but yet again we keep on having to make do. How is a block of flats keeping in line with the current housing looks ? And its getting built by a childs play park which would also need to be upgraded.

PE5 The Maltings has been subjected to buildings works and development in recent history with the Flats and new houses, there was no upgrade to the existing Maltings the road and path way were left destroyed by lorrys and only resurfacing to make new properties look good. No street lighting although there is in the new properties. the road will be more dangerous for kids with increased traffic, no additional parking for the proposed new houses there's not enough now. For all proposed sites, Services for dentist, doctors can't cope now takes ages to get appointments. Public transport is almost non existent every 2 hours and Rye nearest town to far to walk, making it a problem any one requiring a dr. Also why is the housing association in charge auctioning off properties instead of refurbishing for families in need of a home

The Councils insistence on building along the main road due to the bus links is ludicrous. Nearly all household are reliant on motor vehicles in Peasmarsh. This is due to Jempsons being overpriced and being allowed to monopolise the local market. People are forced to travel to Hastings or Tenterden. The buses are infrequent and unreliable. The nearest NHS dentist is in Ashford, hospital appointments are in Hastings or Canterbury so delivering net zero carbon ambitions are impossible as a car is a must.
Reducing flood risk from all sources is a pipe dream. Our road is a stream of running water for more than 6 months of the year. The roadside drains are woefully inadequate and poorly maintained. The area is registered as a flood risk and house insurance is impossible. Rother Council don’t want to recognise the issues regarding surface water and the drainage issues.

I object to the sites PE1 and PE2 as these are areas of natural beauty and would be destroyed by such large developments. The village infrastructure cannot withstand such large developments, for example our public transport system cannot take the strain. The local wildlife disruption in a greenfield area should not be discarded through building sites. To impose such large developments in a small village would be disastrous to the current natural beauty, listed buildings and put far too much of a strain on roads and local resources like doctors, dentists and schools. It would negatively impact the already concerning levels of sewage bubbling through the road and peoples gardens. Our village structure is simply not designed to withstand such vast developments being added.

The proposed plan for Peasmarsh is based on a series of erroneous assumptions regarding sustainability. The plan identifies that the village has a petrol station, chemist, convenience store, cafe etc which portray a well serviced village structure. In reality these services are all concentrated in one location (a mile from the village centre) by a single operator, which services a much wider rural community.

With reference to the proposed planning in Peasmarsh, having surveyed the proposals i wish to make the following comments: firstly the density of the houses and adjacent buildings doesn't always suit the proposed village - Peasmarsh is a small but growing village with a very busy main road running through it so impact of traffic wold be one consideration, flooding and power cuts are frequent to residents, also amenities of which apart from a shop/petrol station which is closed on Sundays we have no near /walk able doctor and i presume that the planners are aware we are in an AONB does this count for nothing.
Therefore i strongly object to the proposed sites in Peasmarsh mainly on density

There is little evidence that sites have been realistically evaluated and considered in terms of infrastructure, facilities (e.g. schools, medical facilities) traffic management (particularly volume of traffic, speeding and safe pedestrian foot paths) and water management (flood plain).

With particular reference to our village of Peasmarsh, full consideration and consultation has not acknowledged the increased flood risk, challenges with local sewerage. Peasmarsh is over represented by this plan impacting on nature and habitat for wildlife.
No consideration has been made for increased transport links for the area

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.

The site chosen for PE1 is not large enough to support 70 houses... in comparison the similar development area of Farleys Way has approx. half this number of dwellings and they are small, modest size houses. The same principle applies to site PE2. Also a big concern is that the amount of ground area being developed in PE1 & PE2 will create a large amount of surface water that will no longer be absorbed by the grass/ soil that is currently there and the new runoff water caused will flow down to the main road and Jempsons' entrance adding to the existing regular flooding .
Another huge concern is the massive increase in traffic which would be caused by the large increase in households. There is already a huge increase in traffic using Wittersham Road to travel to Tenterden and Wittersham and the narrow lane is already struggling with the weight of traffic and we have lost two pets as a result of speeding traffic.

I strongly object to the proposed allocation PE2 (Land south of Main Street, Peasmarsh) for 45 dwellings. This site directly backs onto my garden, posing significant flooding risks to my home. The plan acknowledges surface water flow paths crossing the southern part, requiring SuDS, but development here could exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, directing runoff towards adjacent properties without adequate mitigation. Furthermore, it would disrupt the abundance of wildlife we enjoy, as the site includes a traditional orchard (a Priority Habitat), historic field boundaries, hedgerows, mature trees, and a pond which are all vital for local biodiversity. Destroying these features contradicts High Weald NL protections and would harm the rural character. Prioritise alternative sites to avoid these detrimental impacts on residents and the environment.

Overstretching local infrastructure, particularly sewage and drainage systems.
The village experiences regular and heavy flooding - a discrepency between data that has been reported and residents experiences.
Increased traffic flow and over reliance on cars adding to congestion and increased environmental pollution.
Severe lack of public transport - limited and unreliable service.
Negative impact on biodiversity - not just visible but the biodiversity beneath our feet (crucial in trapping carbon).
Not 'affordable' homes and does not meet the need of local residents and families.

PE1 & PE2 appear to be eating into Natural Environment and open land.
PE3 - seems to contravene the spirit of NPPF and specifically ignores the Inspectors comments (in a refusal to grant) ref 3341060..

Refer to Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/24/3341060 -you will see the Inspector raised serious concerns about the appropriateness of a SINGLE dwelling development having a negative effect on NL. This relates directly to both proposed sites - although site PE3 on the plan is the more serious in this regard.
We all need housing - but not mass housing without infrastructure- where are the jobs, transport services (MANY houses in the village have at LEAST 2 cars parked outside) can we cope with another 250 cars???? Where is the plan to deal with the poor drainage/flooding that besets many newer houses in the village. Finally - Jempsons is a SOLE merchant - and should not be considered immoveable. Many young people in the village cannot afford to shop there - travelling to Hastings Aldi. With a new Aldi proposed in Rye there could well be more pressure on Jempsons.

Peasmarsh - these sites cannot support further development. Access as shown onto Main Street would be dangerous. It has identified issues with pavements and public transport - why are these acceptable now and only something that will be looked at if a new housing development is approved? These things should be addressed as a matter of course and now identified by the council, should be looked into regardless of the developments. The usual provisions of schools, doctors, NHS dentists etc are problematic now and will only be exacerbated by further development. If the infrastructure was in place already, residents would likely support development. But it is not. People move into quieter areas for a reason and respect the local way of life. Turning villages into towns with little infrastructure will make the lives of locals miserable. We can't even keep a stable broadband connection in the village.

i strongly object to PE2. This does not comply with the housing mix required under the neighbourhood plan. The number of houses proposed for Peasmarsh is much higher than was suggested. Peasmarsh has the highest number for a rural village. The proposed vehicular access into PE2 70m into the site can only accomodate a single lane and fails to provide sufficient room for any safe pedestrian access.The demolition of Pippins would not allow for suitable visibility splays. A consequence of the single lane is going to be traffic backing up on main street. As vehicular access would be confined to such a narrow route any pedestrian access to the site by the same route would be impossible.It is therefore suggested that access on foot would be via the green lane. This is unrealistic and will encourage the dangerous practice of pedestrians using what is the vehicular access. The Junction onto the

I strongly object PE1
The properties that lie between PE1 and PE2 are at a safety risk. Entering and leaving these properties will be made much harder, the volume of extra cars created by these 2 sites will make this stretch of main street very busy. The proposed entrance of PE1 will be opposite a lane that serves houses and a working farm. The entrance will also be close to the brow of the hill.There is a no overtaking sign already present near to the vicinity of the site, due to the restricted road width to the west.
During the construction of the site, pedestrians will have to use the pavement along this stretch, what safety measures will be made. The amount of houses proposed is considerably large, the impact on the national landscapes should be a small scale development.
This site will cause more strain on the local infrastructure

PE1-PE5: the number of proposed dwellings is completely disproprotionate to the size of the village. The total of 137 new dwellings, nearly all in the form of (semi-)detached housing, will fundamentally alter the nature and extent of the village, from its current form of a string settlement along main roads to a far more spread-out and extensive development, not in keeping with the historical and natural landscape. This will result in significant and irreversible degradation of this unique village environment.
The allocation of 137 new dwellings to Peasmarsh is also extremely inequitable compared with the allocation of only 32 to Northiam (a similar-sized village) and 53 to adjacent Beckley.
The allocation of 137 new dwellings far exceeds the limits set out in the Local Neighborhood Plan, which was approved only recently. This Plan also very clearly identified that the local infrastructure is unable to cope with such a significant increase.

We strongly object to the plans outlined in site PE1. Not only would it cause overdevelopment in a village currently lacking in sufficient infrastructure, it was also cause damage to the character of the area and the open countryside in Peasmarsh.
The proposed development would increase vehicle volume movement and the positioning of the entrance road would be a dangerous location due to the brow of the hill.
Furthermore, the scale, height and close proximity of the proposed development to our boundary would create an overbearing and dominant presence when viewed from our home and garden.
For the reasons outlined above we therefore strongly object to the proposal.

PEASMARSH:

General comments:
There are currently two planning applications in the system, one for site PE1 and the other for site PE2 Pippins. These two applications would increase the number of houses in the village by 140, this represents a 25% increase in the size of the village at a stroke. We wish to remain a rural village not a dormitory town.

There is currently a lot of housing association houses in Peasmarsh, the new developments may end up being completed by such an organisations and local people that need homes are pushed out because the housing association has people with greater need on their books from a totally different part of the country.

What has attracted the District Council to this village is the presence of Jempson’s supermarket, something very unusual to be present in a small rural village, that also provides for a post office, pharmacy and cheap petrol station. However, this is a family run business that does not have any members who wish to run the business in the future, what will be the situation in ten years’ time?

The current infrastructure: water, electricity, sewage, surface water drainage, broadband cannot coup with the current demands placed upon them, this need sorting out before any substantial development is carried out.

The untreated sewage discharge by the Peasmarsh pumping station into the Corkwood Stream, that flows into the river Rother, and that at the Iden sewage works, where Peasmarsh sewage is pumped, into the Rother account for the bulk of the sewage contamination found in the lower Rother.

The sewage pipes within the village overflow into the road and then down the surface water drain. Some of the houses built in Peasmarsh in the past had their surface water drainage connected to the sewar drain.

The surface water drain becomes overloaded when it rains and the planning application for site PE1 has its SuDS outflow feeding into this drain.

The electricity supply is not on a ring main but on three separate spurs which results in a lot of power supply disruption.

Mobile telephone reception in the village is very patchy, dependant upon the supplier. There have been two major broadband outages in the Rye area lasting several days. Gigaclear have provided a fibre optic cable into the village but not everyone is using it.

The water is supplied by South East water and there are a lot of issues with them at present.

Site specific comments

Site PE1:

Jempson’s supermarket is a family run business going for the last 90 years. There is no family member wishing to take on the business when the current members retire. What happens in 10 years’ time? Will it continue as a supermarket?

Vehicular Access
The access to this site is very close to the top of a brow of a hill with limited site lines in both directions, and the carriage way width being reduced at this point to try and improve sight lines. Entry and exit to this site is further complicated when the sun is low in the sky due to the A268 running East / West through the village. This new access is collocated with that for Woodside and two farms on the other side of the carriage way. Vehicles accessing the farms need to use the current full width of the carriage way to gain access.

Right of Way
There is currently a footpath over this site which will need rerouting.

Drainage
The planning application has the SuDS system draining into the surface water drain. This system cannot cope with the current flow it is required to support.

Public transport
The bus service through the village is only once every two hours, no Sunday service, services cancelled regularly.

Site PE2 Pippins:

Affordability
The village already has a play area run by the parish council, who is going to be responsible for this additional one?
Affordable housing has to be included in any planning application, otherwise, planning permission will not be granted. The developer the cries foul as he cannot afford to build then! So, he is let off; the parish needs small affordable houses not big ones. See housing needs survey in the neighbourhood plan.
The existing small houses are having loft conversions / garage conversions to make them bigger because people cannot afford to move.

Vehicular Access
The access to this site is very close to the top of a brow of a hill with limited site lines in both directions, and the carriage way width being reduced at this point to try and improve sight lines. Entry and exit to this site is further complicated when the sun is low in the sky due to the A268 running East / West through the village. This access and that for PE1 are collocated, the carriage way will be restricted in width for several yards.

Drainage
The current SuDS design has it discharging into a ditch which only a few hundred yards long going from nowhere to nowhere. This ditch was provided to capture rain water runoff from this site and overflows into residents’ gardens that are on the down hill side of the ditch when it rains.

Traditional orchard
Who funds this?

Site PE3 Tanyard:

Affordable Housing
Development proposal received by the parish council suggests affordable rental homes for medical staff that would run a medical facility on this site. Facilities provided at Peasmarsh Place are similar to what is proposed here. If this application is granted what happens at Peasmarsh Place?
Of no real benefit to the village.

Drainage
There are a lot of water springs at the top of this field and surface water drainage is a problem for those houses already built on this site.

Site PE4 Orchard Way:

Included in current neighbourhood development plan.

Site PE5:

During the Maltings development in 2018 the lay-by situated at the entrance to the Maltings off the A268 was removed in order to give off street parking access to the new build houses. This now means that the cars that used the lay-by now park on the other side of the road.

Due to the increase in housing, there is now additional parking due to the off-street parking being of insufficient capacity for the number of cars needing to park. There is additional parking in the Maltings due to insufficient parking space along the A268 (Main Street), such that vehicles turning left off Main Street have to turn into the right-hand lane as vehicles have been parked on the junction.

Currently at the front of the business park there is a small car park for about six cars. This is used on occasions for overnight parking of a coach used for school runs. This car park is extensively used when a football match is being played on the recreation ground. On match days the Old Hop Garden gets used as an overspill car park making it difficult for residents to access their off-street parking. Over the years there has been an increase in overnight street parking in the Old Hop Garden.

The proposed development will result in the removal of the business park car park as this space will be needed to provide for off-street parking for the proposed flats. This will exacerbate the parking problem on the adjacent streets.