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.

Overdevelopment of Peasmarsh village and the risk that further development will encourage the coalescence of Peasmarsh with Rye. Peasmarsh has virtually no public services or facilities save for Jempson's supermarket. To allocate the village 143 extra homes is foolhardy without any prospect that local services and infrastructure will be enhanced. There will be more vehicles on the road to/from Rye, more pressure on GPs, schools, water, sewerage, the electricity network and so forth. If more housing is needed, a better idea would be to investigate the construction of a new inland village equidistant between Hastings and Rye. A housing density of 35 dph is possibly acceptable for a village — but RDC should NOT be making housing allocations in villages without defined settlement boundaries. RDC has failed to indicate what density it will impose on such villages.

Inhabitants at the village (Peasmarsh) have already expressed their views on how much of new buildings could be absorbed preferably where. A democratic referendum has already Village been carried two. Three years ago l submitted to Rother District Council.

As far as Tanyard field is concerned, the general view is that this field is simply ecologically, infrastructurily and community well being, unsuitable. We've objected on the grounds that the field is renowned for its utter wetness and flooding in the winter months. It is a piece of land that is filled with springs. A couple of neighbours had to change their turfs, with artificial grass to replace, as the drainage is so poor. Every winter our sewage gets blocked from having the rain streams flowing from the top of the field and adjoining fields to the main road.

The traffic noise is getting unbearable by the day. The main street has become a conduit for heavy vehicles in the hours of the Morning on their way to other routes. A new (143) new houses in Peasmarsh will only make matters worse. It will simply Kill the spirit and character of Peasmarsh as a village.

By building new premises as far away from the local supermarket/convenience store (Jempsons) will lead to people, instead of walking, using their cars for shopping. You'll appreciate that all this emission will hit both human and inhuman creatures. I suggest that any new buildings are better placed near the commercial unit, and not far away from it, especially if such new houses are occupied by old people, albeit in a limited number.

The medical facility in Rye is already overwhelmed. Currently, booking an appointment takes between 2-3 weeks. Increasing the number of residents will naturally increase the pressure and leave there both staff l community at a peril.

Transport wise, the bus service is stretched: every 2 hours. Not convenient in the dark in winter months, especially WiFi facility is not impressive to say the least. The lines are often cutting out.
By having more houses, than its fair share of new homes, will make Peasmarsh and the residents more vulnerable to such intermittent cuts.

Of course, for Peasmarsh future, new houses are needed. But not to the scale suggested by the plan. The location/s need to be near Jempsons where some amenities are located. Green space is being hollowed out to a great extent with (143) new houses. We all need homes to live in, but with a huge number of (143) houses, the village will be completely devasted and decimated. The local school is unfit to absorb such huge numbers whether now or in the future. Imagine the number of private cars for parents who want to drop or pick up their kids in a narrow street where the school is situated.

All in all, the infrastructure is not there to sustain such a huge influx of people. And finally, I'm not sure that the village needs more vehicles to keep people maintain their daily life, whether job or welfare commitments. Thank you

1) On minimum 5 govt sites, Peasmarsh has ever been subject to surface run-off and flooding. THE CLUE IS IN THE NAME. Look up OS map with marked elevations useful. No sarcasm- Informed by a planner at Tilling Green that RDC planning office was not supplied with such OS maps. (to show us?)
2) "Maximise opportunities for....... biodiversity net gain..." bio-rich areas to be housed.
6) "employment needs.." Many already have to travel
7,8) Exactly what is "sustainable"? Buzz-word.
9) "vibrant mixed communities". Manner of planning separates whole tranches of incomers from main village. Already have problem at Maltings where a number feel isolated, having been imported.

PE1 Site of much bio-diversity. RDC planners should look at OS map showing elevations. Annual run-off towards Jempsons has/is causing annual flooding at bottom at Tanhouse Lane. Run-off from opposite hill similarly inundates farm and road. Drainage insufficient and neglected, as throughout Peasmarsh. No drainage length of Main Road. PE2 similar drainage problems.

PE3 Tanyard Field. Govt OS map 1930's shows springs- geology not changed, nor geograpy - on clay. Same today. Modern OS elevational maps show the same.
Landowner plans15 houses (down from 70+. Mission creep?) as person has applied several times over 20+ years. Exit to Main Rd awkward. Line of sight poor.- potential accidents for 15 +cars and road traffic. Ancient right of way could be impacted. Unacceptable.
PE5 Malthouse B.P. Thought about already tight parking for recreational area? Business park needs parking and deliveries. Where? Flats planned by BP. Rural business can be noisy. Decibels considered?

Our Utilities are outdated especially with regards to the pumping station which is as old as me 1971 ? beleived to be around 19th century
Drains of similar age blocked over flowing broken and not maintained or repaired often overflowing with water and sewage over the paths and roads
The system cannot cope with current population let alone the influx of what council are demanding the high water table has always been a problem the name Peasmarsh gives a clue
south east water on 23 march 2026 bbc news said it cannot cope with the influx of new home the council are proposing there infrastructure is not up-to the demand
Pipes bursting all over the Maltings estate and main road The water collection point nearest was bexhill too far away Jempson sold out of there water and locals resulted in a search unless you were on vulnerable who were being finally delivered water a week later one time they set up at village hall but still ran out of demand.
Many power cuts Broad band outages
I HAVE MAJOR OBJECTION to PE5 MALTINGS BUSiNESS PARK this was designed as a small start up business enterprise i am told by previous tenant the rent increased by double which meant they had to seek cheaper units else where
The car park is shared with recreation ground for use of football parking and parents using the play park facilities we used this car park for the coronation party ,jubilee and fetes and i was always under the impression it was the recreation grounds property for the community to use and this should of been donated to us the community not used as a asset for the council as we lost our original play space to housing development years ago our allotment are used along with coronation allotments by local some disabled or elderly and these are raised beds they too use carpark
I have MAYJOR OBJECTION for any redeveloped here as i believe it would only add burden to the area and the ancient woodland dears woodpeckers etc.. owls . Two new people have signed six year leases in the business units and none were informed of the possibility of redevelopment This car park is a valuable asset to the community it helps with the already parking problem from when the previous development took place at the Maltings entrance they promised to put right the road but this has not happened it is like a dirt track potholes etc..Three houses in that development experience flooding in the first year and burst pipes in and out of there houses with water and sewage backed ups parking is a nightmare as each house only had one parking space which meant they parked on road which was already over congested The local council provide a grit bin as the junction at malthouse business entrance as it was a hazard in snow and ice and is a safety problem due to parked cars on junctions poor visibility and excessive traffic in a over congested area one girl was hit by a car here. also the entrance fom main road to the maltings is blocked cause a bottle kneck at entrance causing cars to enter the wrong side of the road again no help with this
I have a major objection to Tanyard field PE3
This for as long as i remember has tried to develop this area and has been turned down many times in past as unsuitable development due to the high water table and the field has natural springs here called Geysers which we have Known about for years since i was a child we used those field to play and sledge in winter and walks with familys
In 1995 and 1996 Dundee Cottages and Horse and Cart pub flooded due to the TANYARD FIELD PE3 Being rolled as a result the ditch at bottom of there property were dug out a a prevention and was meant to be maintained yearly but has never kept this up but was never rolled ever again
All houses that back onto here either have wells or coverts to help with surface water run of but most will tell you there gardens are constantly full of water and insurance would be impossible due to the area flooding
The Horse and cart and Dundee Cottage are on a monthly flush through provided by conlyn paid by southeast water as they are aware it is a problem there a un resolvable problem they are a constant sight night and day large containers with orange flashing lights so we all are aware when we are blocking up we follow there route round to our homes near pumping station
We have flooded at our property and photos were included in the plan
school lane was a village lane know over populated parked cars on paths as accessibility is impossible some Tennants have four or more cars and trailers full of rubbish again junctions blocked unsafe for children walking to and from school a child was hit there a year or so back the path to main road is overgrown and exits onto a busy main road A ZEBRA CROSSING IS NEEDED HERE as cars do not slow down VISiBILITY to both vehicle and school children is a Hazard and is a ACCIDENT waiting to happen years ago they funded a lolly pop lady unless a lollypop lady is funded and paid this will always be a problem
The local school numbers have declined we found this that most children came fro neighbouring towns and villages as we provided coins for locals as part of jubilee and there is a current rumour beckley may close and merge with Peasmarsh school
Some children have had to leave village school in order to get help with Send and ehcp etc.. as the school were unable to help children with there disability
All schools should be accountable where there SEND funding is being implemented and used in there school
1) Utilities are outdated with regards to the pumping station which is as old as me 1971 ? believed to be around 19th centuryDrains of similar age blocked over flowing broken and not maintained or repaired often overflowing with water and sewage over the paths and south east water on 23 march 2026 bbc news said it cannot cope with the influx of new home the council are proposing there infrastructure is not up-to the demand
2) Power-cuts broadband outages
3) Bus service cut and services not connecting and often cancelled trains the same cause problems as there are not any sixth form collages local
$) nearest sixth form Kent Homewood
PE1 TRNING OUT ON BROWL OF HILL
PE2 again turning onto a brow of hill
drop curd needed and traffic calming

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

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

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

Development Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Development

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed draft Site Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Densities

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

Site Specific Policies

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

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

Individual proposed sites comments

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

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

Legislative Requirements

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

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

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

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

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


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

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Question 1. Point 11 states “ Deliver sustainable development……Having regard to local context and character” This is NOT shown by how Peasmarsh is presented in many instances. The objectives do not include any mention of The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now renamed the High Weald National Landscape!
I think this is a cynical move so that destroying the National Landscape sound less offensive than destroying Natural Beauty. If it is destroyed once it is lost for ever. Changing the name does not make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation.

Qu.5 - Regarding Infrastructure Needs which are essential for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan ( PNDP) accepted by Rother District Council in April 2024 after an Inspection and Local Referendum highlighted in great detail the inadequacy of the Utility and Energy supplies in Peasmarsh.
In 2025 there were 32 water leaks in Peasmarsh ( approximately 3 a month) in Mackerel Hill, Tanhouse Lane, Main Street, School Lane and Church Lane. And some of these have still not been fixed. That is not acceptable and further development will add to these.
The sewer system is completely deficient – the drain arrangements combining storm water with sewage added to the wet conditions ensure not only flooding but the eruption of raw sewage into the road.
Southern Water has admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its capacity so further development of any consequence will exacerbate the unpleasant and insanitary conditions. This problem is confirmed by may photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
And despite the flooding problems in Peasmarsh ( The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh) part of the Village have experienced no water and as a result had to collect bottled water or had it delivered.
Even the Domeday Peasmarsh Church at the highest point in the Village has had a large part of the Churchyard under water! So what hope is there for people living lower down in the Village?
Power cuts are also prevalent and last December and February of this year we experienced a major outage caused by flooding. Apparently this cannot be helped or remedied ! More development will add to the Utility and Energy problems.
Peamarsh was classified as being in a Flood Plain so I do not understand the phrase in the Planning Documents – “clearly not a local issue”.
If developments do go ahead and the flooding, sewage and energy problems follow then as I understand it Rother Distric Council can be sued as they cannot deny not being made aware of these consequences.
Builders in the past have not been held to account. For instance following the closure of a warden assisted complex in Peasmarsh where local people were moved from their homes – the only 3 storey building in Peasmarsh was erected( social housing).
All the grass area was concreted over for parking and as a result houses lower down in Farm Gardens experience flooded gardens. Water has to go somewhere and yet again nothing was put on place to stop this! This is not acceptable and the damage to roads during construction was not repaired.
Incidentally very few former residents were allowed back and the new residents take very little part in Village life.
Many came from towns and find living in a Village difficult?

Qu.6 - The Development Option SD13-A21 seems reasonable.
SD014- filling strategic gaps is sensible and adopted in the PNDP. BUT forcing unreasonable development targets into areas which are totally unsuitable are not

Question 13 - The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster is completely wrong.
It ignores the actual situation in Peasmarsh
Firstly the number of houses allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that of any other Village- despite the geographical, power and water limitations that exist. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes is wrong.
Secondly the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the Village and its capacity to absorb such 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 Peasmarsh in the ANOB/HWNL suffer an increase twice that of the County as a whole?
The Commercial centres in Peasmarsh i.e. Jempsons’store are all on one site and part of one enterprise and run by one person and could be affected anytime by other commercial realities such as a new supermarket in Rye and that person wishing to retire?

Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other Sussex Villages so does not need large scale development.
The wishes of the Villagers expressed democratically in the PNDP said that development should be small scale or infill.
Already many people moved from Hastings and Brighton do not like living in a rural area with a limited bus service and no access to local employment.
Some Bus funding is going to be withdrawn which will add to these problems. Many people placed in the Village from elsewhere do not look after their properties and gardens are full of rubbish plus the number of vehicles parked on roads and pavements.

Qu.47 - I have major objections to 3 of the site allocations in Peasmarsh
PE2 Land to the rear of Pippins,
PE3 Tanyard Field
PE5 Malthouse business park

Qu.47 PE2 - Firstly a house has to be demolished to make room for an entrance. This is situated just past the top of a hill making it dangerous for traffic coming both ways plus the development will add several more cars accessing the Main Street.. It will be yet another green field site with footpaths lost to the Village. As for the projected Play Area Peasmarsh already has 3 recreation areas all nearer the School.
Qu.47 PE3 - Tanyard Field
This is not a “New Site”. The current Landowner has been seeking permission for this site for more than 40 years and it has been rejected on all applications including a rejection by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I understand that one such objection by Rother Distric Council on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P can be found in your files!
The reason why this site was rejected still exist today.
The site was investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the Village working group and independent consultants and subsequently rejected.
And the democratic referendum accepted by Rother District Council endorsed this rejection.
I would point out the following reasons
1. The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/ High Weald National Landscape. Any development would be harmful to the character and park like appearance of the landscape viewed not only as one enters the Village from the direction of Rye Foreign but from many other locations around the Village. In fact it has been known in the Village as The Park as well as Tanyard Field. This would result in damage to the visual amenity of the entire Village.
2. A large number of houses would lose amenity and privacy.
3. Acceptance of the site would encourage other unsuitable applications nearby
4. The Landowner put forward planning applications for 15 houses. Seeing as the same Landowner has put forward many applications for up to 100 houses in the past, permission would only encourage more applications.
5. A nearby listed building would be impacted.
6. The Field has a historic right of way across the Western end of the field leading to the Church situated at the top of the Village and vistas from this path would be lost for ever.
7. The field slopes down very steeply making it totally unsuitable for housing and would exacerbate the drainage problems experience below this field. The drains simply cannot cope.
8. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps and they remain today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface impermeable so heavy rain runs off causing problems and damage to properties on Main Street which lies along the Northern Boundary of the field.
9. When the Landowner sold off turf from the field the Horse and Cart pub ( a listed building at the bottom of the field) experienced flooding, as did several properties nearby. Centuries ago the place where the current Village lies was under water and the old Village was situated around the Domesday Church at the top of the Village. One can only imagine the devastation that would ensure for properties below this field in houses were built on it.?
10. Some years ago a Sinkhole suddenly appeared in School Lane in the road adjacent to the Horse and Cart Car park. This hole was about 6 feet deep and one could see water and cables etc. Very scary!
11. The vehicular access to this site is unsafe and inadequate. There are two access points. Towards the Eastern End the main access leads onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the type, speed and volume of traffic on the Main Road, where the 30MPH speed limit achieved after many requests form Villagers, is often ignore to the despair of inhabitants of the Village. At the Western End there is a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic leading onto School Lane at a particularly congested area between the School and The horse and cart Pub. Any new housing would result in a huge increase in car use and traffic contrary to the National Environmental and Transport policies.
12. This ancient green field site with ancient woodland surround contains and support many species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such a Hedgehogs, Bats, Woodpeckers, Tawny Owls and Badgers and encourages butterflies and insects, not mention the loss for faming as this this field has been used for cattle and sheep.

Qu.47 PE5 Malthouse Business Park - The loss of small established light industrial and commercial units is clearly harmful. It removes local work opportunities and facilities used by the Village. Why would Rother District Council seek to take away employment opportunities?

General Comment on the whole proposed plan.
It is long, wordy and difficult to understand. I feel this is a deliberate strategy so people will give up and not make objections.
Also access to this Plan is not easy nor making a response to it. Many older people live in the Village and do not have access to the internet.
It is very important is keeping access to dark skies- good for mental health and wellbeing.
Personally I think every landowner or builder putting forward planning proposals should set them out clearly in a letter sent to every house in the Village

Question 1. Point 11 states “ Deliver sustainable development……Having regard to local context and character” This is NOT shown by how Peasmarsh is presented in many instances. The objectives do not include any mention of The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now renamed the High Weald National Landscape!
I think this is a cynical move so that destroying the National Landscape sound less offensive than destroying Natural Beauty. If it is destroyed once it is lost for ever. Changing the name does not make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation.

Qu.5 - Regarding Infrastructure Needs which are essential for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan ( PNDP) accepted by Rother District Council in April 2024 after an Inspection and Local Referendum highlighted in great detail the inadequacy of the Utility and Energy supplies in Peasmarsh.
In 2025 there were 32 water leaks in Peasmarsh ( approximately 3 a month) in Mackerel Hill, Tanhouse Lane, Main Street, School Lane and Church Lane. And some of these have still not been fixed. That is not acceptable and further development will add to these.
The sewer system is completely deficient – the drain arrangements combining storm water with sewage added to the wet conditions ensure not only flooding but the eruption of raw sewage into the road.
Southern Water has admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its capacity so further development of any consequence will exacerbate the unpleasant and insanitary conditions. This problem is confirmed by may photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
And despite the flooding problems in Peasmarsh ( The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh) part of the Village have experienced no water and as a result had to collect bottled water or had it delivered.
Even the Domeday Peasmarsh Church at the highest point in the Village has had a large part of the Churchyard under water! So what hope is there for people living lower down in the Village?
Power cuts are also prevalent and last December and February of this year we experienced a major outage caused by flooding. Apparently this cannot be helped or remedied ! More development will add to the Utility and Energy problems.
Peamarsh was classified as being in a Flood Plain so I do not understand the phrase in the Planning Documents – “clearly not a local issue”.
If developments do go ahead and the flooding, sewage and energy problems follow then as I understand it Rother Distric Council can be sued as they cannot deny not being made aware of these consequences.
Builders in the past have not been held to account. For instance following the closure of a warden assisted complex in Peasmarsh where local people were moved from their homes – the only 3 storey building in Peasmarsh was erected( social housing).
All the grass area was concreted over for parking and as a result houses lower down in Farm Gardens experience flooded gardens. Water has to go somewhere and yet again nothing was put on place to stop this! This is not acceptable and the damage to roads during construction was not repaired.
Incidentally very few former residents were allowed back and the new residents take very little part in Village life.
Many came from towns and find living in a Village difficult?

Qu.6 - The Development Option SD13-A21 seems reasonable.
SD014- filling strategic gaps is sensible and adopted in the PNDP. BUT forcing unreasonable development targets into areas which are totally unsuitable are not

Question 13 - The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster is completely wrong.
It ignores the actual situation in Peasmarsh
Firstly the number of houses allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that of any other Village- despite the geographical, power and water limitations that exist. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes is wrong.
Secondly the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the Village and its capacity to absorb such 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 Peasmarsh in the ANOB/HWNL suffer an increase twice that of the County as a whole?
The Commercial centres in Peasmarsh i.e. Jempsons’store are all on one site and part of one enterprise and run by one person and could be affected anytime by other commercial realities such as a new supermarket in Rye and that person wishing to retire?

Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other Sussex Villages so does not need large scale development.
The wishes of the Villagers expressed democratically in the PNDP said that development should be small scale or infill.
Already many people moved from Hastings and Brighton do not like living in a rural area with a limited bus service and no access to local employment.
Some Bus funding is going to be withdrawn which will add to these problems. Many people placed in the Village from elsewhere do not look after their properties and gardens are full of rubbish plus the number of vehicles parked on roads and pavements.

Qu.47 - I have major objections to 3 of the site allocations in Peasmarsh
PE2 Land to the rear of Pippins,
PE3 Tanyard Field
PE5 Malthouse business park

Qu.47 PE2 - Firstly a house has to be demolished to make room for an entrance. This is situated just past the top of a hill making it dangerous for traffic coming both ways plus the development will add several more cars accessing the Main Street.. It will be yet another green field site with footpaths lost to the Village. As for the projected Play Area Peasmarsh already has 3 recreation areas all nearer the School.
Qu.47 PE3 - Tanyard Field
This is not a “New Site”. The current Landowner has been seeking permission for this site for more than 40 years and it has been rejected on all applications including a rejection by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I understand that one such objection by Rother Distric Council on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P can be found in your files!
The reason why this site was rejected still exist today.
The site was investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the Village working group and independent consultants and subsequently rejected.
And the democratic referendum accepted by Rother District Council endorsed this rejection.
I would point out the following reasons
1. The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/ High Weald National Landscape. Any development would be harmful to the character and park like appearance of the landscape viewed not only as one enters the Village from the direction of Rye Foreign but from many other locations around the Village. In fact it has been known in the Village as The Park as well as Tanyard Field. This would result in damage to the visual amenity of the entire Village.
2. A large number of houses would lose amenity and privacy.
3. Acceptance of the site would encourage other unsuitable applications nearby
4. The Landowner put forward planning applications for 15 houses. Seeing as the same Landowner has put forward many applications for up to 100 houses in the past, permission would only encourage more applications.
5. A nearby listed building would be impacted.
6. The Field has a historic right of way across the Western end of the field leading to the Church situated at the top of the Village and vistas from this path would be lost for ever.
7. The field slopes down very steeply making it totally unsuitable for housing and would exacerbate the drainage problems experience below this field. The drains simply cannot cope.
8. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps and they remain today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface impermeable so heavy rain runs off causing problems and damage to properties on Main Street which lies along the Northern Boundary of the field.
9. When the Landowner sold off turf from the field the Horse and Cart pub ( a listed building at the bottom of the field) experienced flooding, as did several properties nearby. Centuries ago the place where the current Village lies was under water and the old Village was situated around the Domesday Church at the top of the Village. One can only imagine the devastation that would ensure for properties below this field in houses were built on it.?
10. Some years ago a Sinkhole suddenly appeared in School Lane in the road adjacent to the Horse and Cart Car park. This hole was about 6 feet deep and one could see water and cables etc. Very scary!
11. The vehicular access to this site is unsafe and inadequate. There are two access points. Towards the Eastern End the main access leads onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the type, speed and volume of traffic on the Main Road, where the 30MPH speed limit achieved after many requests form Villagers, is often ignore to the despair of inhabitants of the Village. At the Western End there is a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic leading onto School Lane at a particularly congested area between the School and The horse and cart Pub. Any new housing would result in a huge increase in car use and traffic contrary to the National Environmental and Transport policies.
12. This ancient green field site with ancient woodland surround contains and support many species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such a Hedgehogs, Bats, Woodpeckers, Tawny Owls and Badgers and encourages butterflies and insects, not mention the loss for faming as this this field has been used for cattle and sheep.

Qu.47 PE5 Malthouse Business Park - The loss of small established light industrial and commercial units is clearly harmful. It removes local work opportunities and facilities used by the Village. Why would Rother District Council seek to take away employment opportunities?

General Comment on the whole proposed plan.
It is long, wordy and difficult to understand. I feel this is a deliberate strategy so people will give up and not make objections.
Also access to this Plan is not easy nor making a response to it. Many older people live in the Village and do not have access to the internet.
It is very important is keeping access to dark skies- good for mental health and wellbeing.
Personally I think every landowner or builder putting forward planning proposals should set them out clearly in a letter sent to every house in the Village

Question 1. Point 11 states “ Deliver sustainable development……Having regard to local context and character” This is NOT shown by how Peasmarsh is presented in many instances. The objectives do not include any mention of The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – now renamed the High Weald National Landscape!
I think this is a cynical move so that destroying the National Landscape sound less offensive than destroying Natural Beauty. If it is destroyed once it is lost for ever. Changing the name does not make it any less beautiful or worthy of preservation.

Qu.5 - Regarding Infrastructure Needs which are essential for any acceptable development.
The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan ( PNDP) accepted by Rother District Council in April 2024 after an Inspection and Local Referendum highlighted in great detail the inadequacy of the Utility and Energy supplies in Peasmarsh.
In 2025 there were 32 water leaks in Peasmarsh ( approximately 3 a month) in Mackerel Hill, Tanhouse Lane, Main Street, School Lane and Church Lane. And some of these have still not been fixed. That is not acceptable and further development will add to these.
The sewer system is completely deficient – the drain arrangements combining storm water with sewage added to the wet conditions ensure not only flooding but the eruption of raw sewage into the road.
Southern Water has admitted that the Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its capacity so further development of any consequence will exacerbate the unpleasant and insanitary conditions. This problem is confirmed by may photos in the Appendices to the PNDP.
And despite the flooding problems in Peasmarsh ( The clue is in the name – Peasmarsh) part of the Village have experienced no water and as a result had to collect bottled water or had it delivered.
Even the Domeday Peasmarsh Church at the highest point in the Village has had a large part of the Churchyard under water! So what hope is there for people living lower down in the Village?
Power cuts are also prevalent and last December and February of this year we experienced a major outage caused by flooding. Apparently this cannot be helped or remedied ! More development will add to the Utility and Energy problems.
Peamarsh was classified as being in a Flood Plain so I do not understand the phrase in the Planning Documents – “clearly not a local issue”.
If developments do go ahead and the flooding, sewage and energy problems follow then as I understand it Rother Distric Council can be sued as they cannot deny not being made aware of these consequences.
Builders in the past have not been held to account. For instance following the closure of a warden assisted complex in Peasmarsh where local people were moved from their homes – the only 3 storey building in Peasmarsh was erected( social housing).
All the grass area was concreted over for parking and as a result houses lower down in Farm Gardens experience flooded gardens. Water has to go somewhere and yet again nothing was put on place to stop this! This is not acceptable and the damage to roads during construction was not repaired.
Incidentally very few former residents were allowed back and the new residents take very little part in Village life.
Many came from towns and find living in a Village difficult?

Qu.6 - The Development Option SD13-A21 seems reasonable.
SD014- filling strategic gaps is sensible and adopted in the PNDP. BUT forcing unreasonable development targets into areas which are totally unsuitable are not

Question 13 - The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern Settlements Cluster is completely wrong.
It ignores the actual situation in Peasmarsh
Firstly the number of houses allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that of any other Village- despite the geographical, power and water limitations that exist. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes is wrong.
Secondly the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the Village and its capacity to absorb such 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 Peasmarsh in the ANOB/HWNL suffer an increase twice that of the County as a whole?
The Commercial centres in Peasmarsh i.e. Jempsons’store are all on one site and part of one enterprise and run by one person and could be affected anytime by other commercial realities such as a new supermarket in Rye and that person wishing to retire?

Peasmarsh already has more social and low-cost housing than many other Sussex Villages so does not need large scale development.
The wishes of the Villagers expressed democratically in the PNDP said that development should be small scale or infill.
Already many people moved from Hastings and Brighton do not like living in a rural area with a limited bus service and no access to local employment.
Some Bus funding is going to be withdrawn which will add to these problems. Many people placed in the Village from elsewhere do not look after their properties and gardens are full of rubbish plus the number of vehicles parked on roads and pavements.

Qu.47 - I have major objections to 3 of the site allocations in Peasmarsh
PE2 Land to the rear of Pippins,
PE3 Tanyard Field
PE5 Malthouse business park

Qu.47 PE2 - Firstly a house has to be demolished to make room for an entrance. This is situated just past the top of a hill making it dangerous for traffic coming both ways plus the development will add several more cars accessing the Main Street.. It will be yet another green field site with footpaths lost to the Village. As for the projected Play Area Peasmarsh already has 3 recreation areas all nearer the School.
Qu.47 PE3 - Tanyard Field
This is not a “New Site”. The current Landowner has been seeking permission for this site for more than 40 years and it has been rejected on all applications including a rejection by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I understand that one such objection by Rother Distric Council on 22nd February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P can be found in your files!
The reason why this site was rejected still exist today.
The site was investigated during the preparation of the PNDP, both by the Village working group and independent consultants and subsequently rejected.
And the democratic referendum accepted by Rother District Council endorsed this rejection.
I would point out the following reasons
1. The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/ High Weald National Landscape. Any development would be harmful to the character and park like appearance of the landscape viewed not only as one enters the Village from the direction of Rye Foreign but from many other locations around the Village. In fact it has been known in the Village as The Park as well as Tanyard Field. This would result in damage to the visual amenity of the entire Village.
2. A large number of houses would lose amenity and privacy.
3. Acceptance of the site would encourage other unsuitable applications nearby
4. The Landowner put forward planning applications for 15 houses. Seeing as the same Landowner has put forward many applications for up to 100 houses in the past, permission would only encourage more applications.
5. A nearby listed building would be impacted.
6. The Field has a historic right of way across the Western end of the field leading to the Church situated at the top of the Village and vistas from this path would be lost for ever.
7. The field slopes down very steeply making it totally unsuitable for housing and would exacerbate the drainage problems experience below this field. The drains simply cannot cope.
8. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps and they remain today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. The heavy clay soil makes the surface impermeable so heavy rain runs off causing problems and damage to properties on Main Street which lies along the Northern Boundary of the field.
9. When the Landowner sold off turf from the field the Horse and Cart pub ( a listed building at the bottom of the field) experienced flooding, as did several properties nearby. Centuries ago the place where the current Village lies was under water and the old Village was situated around the Domesday Church at the top of the Village. One can only imagine the devastation that would ensure for properties below this field in houses were built on it.?
10. Some years ago a Sinkhole suddenly appeared in School Lane in the road adjacent to the Horse and Cart Car park. This hole was about 6 feet deep and one could see water and cables etc. Very scary!
11. The vehicular access to this site is unsafe and inadequate. There are two access points. Towards the Eastern End the main access leads onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the type, speed and volume of traffic on the Main Road, where the 30MPH speed limit achieved after many requests form Villagers, is often ignore to the despair of inhabitants of the Village. At the Western End there is a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic leading onto School Lane at a particularly congested area between the School and The horse and cart Pub. Any new housing would result in a huge increase in car use and traffic contrary to the National Environmental and Transport policies.
12. This ancient green field site with ancient woodland surround contains and support many species of birds, animals and plants. These include protected species such a Hedgehogs, Bats, Woodpeckers, Tawny Owls and Badgers and encourages butterflies and insects, not mention the loss for faming as this this field has been used for cattle and sheep.

Qu.47 PE5 Malthouse Business Park - The loss of small established light industrial and commercial units is clearly harmful. It removes local work opportunities and facilities used by the Village. Why would Rother District Council seek to take away employment opportunities?

General Comment on the whole proposed plan.
It is long, wordy and difficult to understand. I feel this is a deliberate strategy so people will give up and not make objections.
Also access to this Plan is not easy nor making a response to it. Many older people live in the Village and do not have access to the internet.
It is very important is keeping access to dark skies- good for mental health and wellbeing.
Personally I think every landowner or builder putting forward planning proposals should set them out clearly in a letter sent to every house in the Village

I object to any further developments in Peasmarsh, until the Utilities are fit for purpose , Our drainage system is inadequate in so many ways, site PE1 and PE2 should not be developed as the run off into Tanyard Lane is already awful with ditches full and roads covered in water , the water drains down into Tanyard Lane from 200 acres of farmland, please do not make this area any worse.
water from these sites also pours into Jempsons supermarket from the rear. This area cannot take anymore water, the attenuation ponds/suds that are suggested for this site will not work , there is to much water , the current system cannot take it , and who will be responsible for these attenuation ponds? as it will not be the developers or the Council , this is a very grey area that needs to be looked at.

development site PE5 this area is already overcrowded and has major parking problems , which only be made worse with more development and parking issues

Qu. 47 We feel very strongly about the Tanyards Field (PE3) development.
This is not a new Site for development as the Landowner has been Seeking Planning Permission for over 40 years which has always been rejected. This Site has been investigated by the Village Working Group and Independent consultants and subsequently rejected for development . This Site is totally unsuitable for development . The field is located in an area of outstanding Natural Beauty / High weald National Landscape and any development would alter the whole appearance of the Village This would have a devastating impact on the whole area. This development would affect the houses within Sight and Sound of Tanyards Field leading to a lack of Privacy and Peace and quiet that we all enjoy. To suggest that only a few houses would be built is neither here nor there. Inevitably if planning was permitted we are sure that the number of houses planned would be increased. Any development would impact Significantly on the Village and the wellbeing of the community and our lives would be changed forever. We moved to this peaceful Village To enjoy our retirement. The walks along the historical footpaths and rights of way are enjoyed by all and have been walked for hundreds of years and the damage to these paths would be irretrievable. The field Slopes very Steeply downwards making it totally unsuitable for housing and would add to the drainage problems which the village suffers from. The heavy clay Soil makes the Surface impermeable. Therefore heavy rain simply runs off causing considerable problems and damage to the properties along Main Street. The field is full of underground springs which show up on old maps and we have seen photos of water spouting out of the ground in the field which again just adds to the overloading of the main combined drains and even Southern Water were not satisfied that this site could be drained enough to build on and the drainage system would not be able to cope, Tanyards Field has always been referred to as 'Soggy Meadow' by the locals giving you an 1dea of how wet it is. The main Vehicular access from the site in Main Street is totally unacceptable. There is a blind bend where cars would be pulling out onto main street unable to See oncoming traffic. Although the speed limit is 30 mph it is regularly Ignored We have had Several near misses when exiting our drive including drivers overtaking on the wrong Side of the road. Any housing development would result in a Substantial increase in car numbers and traffic generally and a risk to life The site is totally unsuitable for housing. The School Lane entrance is a narrow gateway completely unsuitable for traffic School Lane is a. narrow Lane with parked cars near a School. which would be unsafe for children Although There is a Supermarket 1 Pharmacy\ Post office and garage in Peasmarsh they are all on the one Site and if this was to close there would be no facilities in the village. The ancient field with its ancient woodland and copse in the centre is enjoyed by all and is a haven for many wildlife including bats owls Badgers Pheasants woodpeckers and many more that frequent the properties . This development would have a devastating impact on so many animals and birds.

Sites PE1 and PE2 , These developments are far to big for a village over 100 houses proposed on these sites, these fields and surrounding fields flood, the water travels down on to Tanyard Lane, only recently this area flooded and a Lorry got stuck on the grass verge for several hours, over 200 acres of fields drains down to Tanyard Lane , the drainage in this village is not sustainable , southern water have just admitted with all these houses proposed , they cannot supply all with drinking water, we have constant sewage dumps from Peasmarsh already without any new developments being built, this is going to cause major issues going forward, the proposed SUDS will not be sustainable , who will be responsible for the care of these once developers have left ?? These sites are currently used by locals and this will be taken away .

I OBJECT TO PE5 MALTHOUSE BUSINESS UNITS REDEVELOPMENT 147 house These are not affordable housing there is no such thing as affordable housing no more for local familys or teenagers getting on the housing ladder I am not happy that you have slipped in the MALTING BUSINESS PARK PE5 into the plan this area is used for small start up business and and the car park is shared by the COMMUNITY RECREATION GROUND is used for fetes jubilees and the coronation celebrations Familys park her use the playground or field or there kids use football club matches and park here to walk the dogs in the country side ancient woodland that this adheres to habbited by owels dear boars etc.. Local bridal way is used bu people and there horses on conrete track when the football tornerments and matches are on the road on the maltings/hopgarden in congested so bad it is challenging getting off or on the estate along with park cars on the entrance of the maltings you have to enter it on the wrong side of the road then the juction s leading of also struggle exiting there culdisac to poor visability due to cars blocking there view a child got hit by a car exiting the trees that are not looked after by highways they need trimmining back the paths have uprooted roots making them a trip hazard Malting S is already over congested due to the influx of people and the recent devepoment 6 years back has really added to the exsisting problem and make it impossible when fire engine etc is called The allotment sare used and again park here Infrustructure Surface water run off has doubled this year alog with the wealther climate which is only going to get worse the recreation ground had had two big bill s were there pipes had broke these are pipes meant to soak away surface water from recreation ground The pumping station cannot cope with the exsisting home let alone more south east water was on the BBC said the could not cope with the councils demand for potential new housing development numbers as the infrusture is outdated and would not cope Drain s are overflowing due to not maintained Burst water pipes have led to jempson and nearby town running out of water and the only alternative was to collect from bexhill the system need sorting before we move forward electricity cut are often in the village due to trees falling etc.. due to various reason petrel stain has run out large conway tankers constantly flushing drains through the village due to them blocking up all time s of the day event in the middle of the night I OBJECT TO PE3 TANYARD FIELD THIS IS OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY Natural springs geyesers her for decades the water runs down the steep hils and lays in the boggy field Years ago 1995/96 this fields was rolled which caused flooding to dundee coages and the horse and cat pub and as a relut it was let alone and never done again the homes all have coverts etc in most the propertys that adjoin this field because of the surface run off School lane was a vintage lane not designed for the current traffic let alone any more cars parked of paths so cars can get past seems to be why people do this but means paths are un useable for children attending the school the field entrance was only attended as a tractor entrance nothing more and the land has been farmed for over fifty years by the [personal details redacted] family we have played here and tobagon her as children walk to chuch and enjoyed the conty side cows sheep grazing wood pecker birds owes pheasants etc.. even newets PE 1 AND 2 BROW OF HILL ENTRANCE IS NOT a great idea Traffic calming would be needed Zebra crossing needed drop paths white lies on juctions discouraging parking within ten metres

I oppose these suggested developments as it is over development for the size of the village there is little infrastructure with the area, limited bus routes and will put strain on local facilities

on site PE1 in Peasmarsh, Kitewood the developers have ammended their devlopment plan, they do not have a clue about the flooding in these fields that runs into Jempsons supermarket and down into Tanhouse Lane, This development will be visable from the open countryside, which should be protected , this is prime ANOB and should have the highest protection, it has hedgerows, wildlife , the SUDS they are going to use will not work, there is far to much surface water in this village , this is the worse kind of water , these developers listen to enviromental about rivers and seas , SURFACE WATER IS THE WORSE KIND OF WATER AND PEASMARSH IS FULL OF IT , please listen to the people who live here, this development is far to large for the open countryside , this is not Surburbia ,

The 2 main sites PE1 and PE2 are excessively massed and cannot be supported with the existing infrastructure. Both areas have consistently reported localised flooding ( which is contrary to the overall statements made by Rother as to where they will not build), sewage overflows and inadequate IT infrastructure. Public transport is at best, extremely limited meaning there would be limited movement opportunities for those without access to a car.

PE1 Area is severely affected from surface water flooding from approx 200 /300 circumference acres of surrounding fields. Site slopes off towards Jempsons field and onto Tanyard Lane. Properties in Tanyard Lane will flood and so will Jempsons yard/store. Tanyard Lane has problems with surface water flooding ditches along the lane fill up on a regular basis. Water runs down the road like a river. Caravan park floods. The site is directly next to PE2 which has already been given planning permission! That would mean in excess of 100 properties being built on land that floods regularly. There is no mains drainage. House is being demolished to provide access/exit to the site on the brow of a hill, extremely dangerous. . Plenty of wildlife live there, bats are seen on regular basis. It is a dark skies area a haven for bats and nocturnal wildlife. Completely unsustainable, transport links poor.

PE2 Pippins site. Approved after being declined twice. Strong local opposition discounted by planning/council. No mains drainage, poor local transport system. No education facility for 6th formers. One shop in the area, high prices. High percentage of villagers shop elsewhere due to pricing structure. House being demolished to provide access/exit to the site positioned very close to similar access point for PE1, cars will find it very difficult exiting both sites on to a busy main road. Surface water flooding a serious problem for existing surrounding properties. Water to be retained in attenuation tank delaying flow into drainage system. Maintenance of the tank responsibility of residents , not Southern Water or district Council - unsatisfactory.
Building 88% of Peasmarsh proposed development in the same area is completely unacceptable PEA1/PEA2 irresponsible. Given the flooding issues, greenbelt land AONB impacting on the High Weald Landscape.

I OBJECT TO PE5 MALTHOUSE BUSINESS PARK
The location of The business park was designed beatifully in its habitat suroundings of the ancient woodland behind and it not intrusive of the surrounding area.
It shares the car park with the recreation ground which i thought belonged to the village recreation ground for the community to use for various events football,recreational events etc..
The car park is used for young familys to park of the road away form taffic on a already congested estate, the juntion at the business park serves the maltings /hop gardens /farm gardens and therefore is already a busy route of natural traffic flow at all times, however when football matches are on it is blocked congested and sometimes quite tricky to negotiate routes as there are cars parked everywhere
The orginal maltings has a problem with congestion due to most familys having to work and most there fore have two car per household
and when new development was built their vechiles have added to the congesting onto the original estate as they were only givern one parking space per house
The sheltered housing has a car park which would ease this problem but is only used for resident of scheme and is not used for the full potential
the layby out side their scheme was designed for drop ofs ambulance pick up etc but again is used as extra parking at times
I beleive there should be traffic calming through the village and a zebra crossing for children and the elderly at the maltings pedestation island
I am not aginst future developments but not here on a congested estae as i would like to upgrade to a bigger home eventually but infrustructer does need sorting due to flooding surface and sewage etc..

PE1 development site is wholly in HWNL/ ANOB, having read the objection from the HWNL they feel planning should be refused on PE1 due to the development being a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT , and would encroach onto the open countryside , and development would fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty , and this area contributes positively to the landscape character of the HWNL, and would urbanise the rural setting of the ANOB, HWNL feel the layout and design of the proposed residential development is considered to be wholly unacceptable to the HW AONB housing design guide and would have adverse impacts in the HWNL, this area is used by so many people for the mental health and wellbeing , this development site should not be developed , planning should be refused, also mentioned in the NWNL objection , they also state planning should be refused on PE1

The HWNL have included a objection letter to various sites on the Rother local plan , site PE1 being one of the sites they object to being developed , having read the document they have a very good description of the PE1 site in its beauty and and natural surroundings, this area is of open countryside, with heritage hedgerows and open views, areas like this should be protected from Major developments, like the 70 houses proposed for this site, this would be completely out of the character and therefore planning should be refused. To put a large development in this area PE1 would be totally against what HWNL stands for, we need to the pattern of small irregularly shaped fields bounded by hedgerows and woodlands, to protect and enhance the ecological function of field and heath as part of the complex mosaic of high weald habitat.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed housing development in Peasmarsh.

While I understand the need for additional housing, I strongly believe that this particular development would place unsustainable pressure on an already strained local infrastructure and significantly harm the character of our rural community.

Firstly, the village currently suffers from inadequate infrastructure. Frequent power cuts and recurring broadband outages already disrupt daily life for residents. Introducing further housing will only increase demand on these systems, which are clearly not equipped to cope.

Flooding is also a persistent issue. Village roads and surrounding fields regularly flood during periods of heavy rainfall, raising serious concerns about drainage capacity and the suitability of further development on this land. These concerns are compounded by the existing sewage system, which is outdated, poorly maintained, and prone to blockages. Overflowing drains and sewage spillage are already a recurring problem, posing both environmental and public health risks.

Local services are similarly under pressure. The primary school has no capacity for expansion, meaning additional families would place further strain on already limited educational provision.

Traffic and road safety present another major concern. Traffic levels in the village have increased significantly in recent years, and congestion is already severe, particularly on the road leading to the school, which is gridlocked most mornings and afternoons. Additional housing will inevitably lead to more vehicles, worsening congestion and creating heightened risks for pedestrians, especially children. Parking is already insufficient, and further demand will exacerbate the issue.

Public transport provision is also declining, with bus route frequency set to be reduced even further. This will increase reliance on private vehicles, compounding traffic and environmental concerns.

The condition of local roads is another issue. Potholes are widespread and often remain unrepaired for long periods. Increased construction traffic and ongoing use by additional residents will only accelerate deterioration.

Finally, the proposed development site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Developing this land would be detrimental to the character, appearance, and environmental integrity of the village. The loss of this open field would fundamentally alter the rural nature of the area, which is highly valued by residents and visitors alike.

For all of these reasons, I urge the council to reject this proposal. The development is not supported by the necessary infrastructure, poses significant environmental and safety risks, and would irreparably harm the character of our village.

Thank you for considering my objection.

I write to formally object to the proposed housing development in Peasmarsh.

While the need for additional housing is recognised, this proposal represents unsustainable development in this location and fails to align with the principles of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Rother District Council’s Local Plan. The site is not supported by adequate infrastructure, and the impacts of the development have not been satisfactorily mitigated.

Existing infrastructure within the village is already under significant strain. Frequent power outages and unreliable broadband provision demonstrate limited capacity to accommodate further demand. In the absence of clear and deliverable infrastructure improvements, the proposal would exacerbate these deficiencies, contrary to the requirement for development to be supported by adequate infrastructure.

Flood risk and drainage are of particular concern. The village experiences regular surface water flooding, with roads and surrounding land frequently affected during periods of heavy rainfall. This raises serious doubts regarding the suitability of the site and the effectiveness of any proposed drainage strategy. These concerns are compounded by an outdated and poorly maintained sewage network, which is already prone to blockages and overflows, posing unacceptable risks to both the environment and public health.

Local services are also constrained. The primary school has no capacity for expansion, and there is no clear evidence that additional educational provision can be delivered to meet increased demand. This places further pressure on existing community infrastructure, contrary to the objectives of sustainable development.

The impact on highways and road safety is significant. Traffic levels in the village have increased substantially, and congestion is already severe, particularly on routes serving the school. The addition of further housing would inevitably increase vehicle movements, worsening congestion, exacerbating parking shortages, and creating heightened risks for pedestrians, especially children. In the context of declining public transport provision, future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles, further undermining sustainability objectives.

The condition of the local road network is already poor, with widespread potholes and limited maintenance. Increased construction traffic and ongoing use would accelerate deterioration, placing additional strain on local infrastructure.

Furthermore, the site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where national policy requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. The proposed development would result in the loss of open countryside and cause significant harm to the character, appearance, and tranquillity of the area, contrary to these protections.

In summary, the proposal fails to demonstrate that it can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on infrastructure, the environment, and local amenity. It is therefore contrary to both local and national planning policy.

For these reasons, I respectfully object to the plan

PE1 site should not be granted planning permission, due to its importance of being HWNL/ANOB, this site is open countryside, with beautiful views across fields with ancient hedgerows and woodland, how can anyone justify a Major development of 70 houses proposed on this site, this area should be protected, any kind of development here would harm it qualities and importance as part of the HWNL, we need to protect the dark skies of the HW AONB, by minimising light pollution, we need to look after its tranquillity and wildlife and natural habitats , not to build large development of buildings that just do not fit into the countryside, by its design or density, this type of development is more suitable to major towns, not villages in open countryside that form part of HWNL, this development is totally wrong in so many ways , Planning should be refused on PE1

I have objections to all of the proposed developments. Reason 1. Southern Water's pumping station according to Floodmapping has discharged into a tributary of River Rother 1582 times during 2021 to 2024 for a total of 12098 hours. This can be checked on https://www.flood-mapper.com/data-explorer/search-sewage-report/58d6d51b-aaf8-11ee-baa2-0242ac140003/Peasmarsh/historical. In 2026, records up to 22nd March 2026 show that there have been 50 dumps so far, totalling 435 hours. This can be checked onhttps://top-of-the-poops.org/constituency/hastings-and-rye. Clearly there is no capacity for more housing or sewage without further environmental catastrophe. The GP surgeries in Northiam and Rye are unable to recruit extra GPs, they have been trying for years. The Conquest Hospital waiting lists are phenomenal and there is hardly any bus service or post-16 education facilities that young people can access. Flooding across the roads and into gardens in Peasmarsh is already bad, you can see this across the road most days.

PE2 as far as I'm aware has already been approved with 45 houses. To add another development at PE1 with 70 houses seems outrageous considering it is a huge increase of 115 houses compared to the current total of 500-600 in Peasmarsh. Also there are issues with traffic safety at the entrances of both these developments.
If any of these developments go ahead, I would like to see a proper proportion of low cost truly affordable homes provided, for those with a local link to the village. My sons will never be able to afford to live in a rural area otherwise. That's what we really need in the village - small developments of low cost housing, not large developments making profit for developers.
In addition, I understand there will be attentuation ponds to ease flooding - who will be responsible for these long term? This needs serious consideration.

I wish to object to all 5 developments , This is designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and part of The High Weald
The High Weald’s diverse mix of interconnected habitats – many unchanged since medieval times – is home to an astonishing range of flora and fauna, which add to the unique character of the area, why destroy green fields when there are many brown field sites in other parts of Rother and places such as Hastings town centre close to good transport links. Lack of infrastructure , very poor bus service, about to be cut again soon. No doctor or dental practices, small school. We are called PeasMARSH our land is very wet already and further concrete and tarmac will creat further flooding. PE1 and PE2 have very dangerous access and PE2 is having to build out to narrow the road. Lack of proper consultation