Sites PE1 and PE2 - Lack of employment in the area. The school is already full. Surface water drainage is inadequate my garden floods several times each year and now climate change. Foul water drainage is already inadequate and requires pumping. Public transport is almost non existent which will mean many more cars on a very ill maintained stretch of highway.The density of building proposed indicates well over 100 dwellings in these 2 sites. The traffic from inadequate exits of the two sites issue onto the narrow main road very close to the brow of a hill.

Lack of infrastructure. Already flooded areas. Drainage issues already present within the village. Already pressure on GP surgeries and pharmacies. These issues will just get worse with this development.

Who actually thought of these proposed sites really should be sacked! THey contain listed buildings flood planes No ready access and no thought for environmental and economic effect to the area. This would a drain on all resources and on safety and emergency services.

PE1 this land is frequently waterlogged and water pours down to the west (Jempsons), east (through PE2 site through Griffin Lane and Farleys Way) and north (Main Street) mainly affecting gardens. Its position at the very end of the sewage/waste water system in Peasmarsh will put further strain on the overloaded sewage system which already sees frequent flooding into house at the easy end of the village, The Peasmarsh Pumping Station and Iden Water Treatment are both at the top end of the scale for foul water releases into the River Rother. Equally the water system regularly has problems (there have been 7 alerts of water outages in the village since January from SE water. We also suffer water outages when there are electricity failures anywhere along the pumping route as SE water no longer use diesel generators as back up when the power goes off. Details are available in the Appendices of the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Plan.
PE2 - the concerns are the same as the abutting site and the council has taken them seriously in the conditions imposed on planning permission
PE3 - this site has frequently been refused as unsuitable in the past. Again the issue of surface water flooding is primary as is the importance of a site do visible to the whole community as not being in keeping in this area
PE5 - this is overdevelopment both for the site and more the immediate area. It is within the area which is blighted by flooding from the sewage/waste water system and the social housing recently built in the area already has issues with toilets backing up and spewing foul water into the houses. There are already too many cars parked in the streets of the Maltings and adjacent roads leading to issues with road rage and unsafe parking.

Point 1 includes mention of flood risks. Site PE 3 and PE 4 in Peasmarsh will increase flood risk if building occurs.
Point 10 includes mention of complying with Neighbourhood Plans. Peasmarsh has a detailed Neighbourhood Plan which rejected Site PE3 partly on the grounds of flood risk.

The Peasmarsh neighbourhood plan, ruled out development on site PE3 due to run off from the numerous springs in the field and the lack of capacity in the existing sewage network.
Sewage has overflowed into the stream culverted at the bottom of School Lane, and into gardens.
I live in a listed building on the North side of Main Street, where we have experienced sewage in the stream alongside our garden. We also experience flooding in our garden, from field run off, which will worsen if development occurs on site PE4.

See individual responses answering questions 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, 47 and 68.

See individual responses answering questions 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, 47 and 68.

See individual responses answering questions 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, 47 and 68.

See individual responses answering questions 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, 47 and 68.

See individual responses answering questions 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, 47 and 68.

PE1 Kitewood. Landlocked site, house to be demolished to access/exit the area. The area slopes away to Tanhouse Lane and is surrounded by fields. Surface water flooding is a major problem because the area is surround by approx 300 acres of fields where run off causes major issues in Tanhouse Lane, Jempsons and the junction of Main Street and Tanhouse Lane. Building 71 properties in the area would create additional major flooding for Jempsons and residential properties in the area. There is no mains drainage. The access/exit is proposed on the brow of the hill in a 40 mph zone, extremely dangerous. Bus service is poor and unreliable. Train service - one an hour to Eastbourne and Ashford, the service regularly breaks down due to lack of staff, no running stock, delays etc. No doctors surgery, impossible to register with local dentist their books are full. The drainage/sewage system is a major problem for existing residents in Peasmarsh. All these issues were included in the previous local plan and nothing has changed, the current infrastructure cannot support this level of development.
The area is part of HWNL, it is home to a wide variety of wildlife and should be protected. There is no secondary education for six formers in the area, students would have to commute to Bexhill/Hastings, this cannot be good for their well being and mental health given the transport issues. 88% of new build target in this one area is unsustainable and does not fit into Rother’s ethos of ‘Living Well’.

PE2 Pippins. This site has already received planning approval, despite being declined on two previous occasions. Land locked and requires a property to be demolished for access/exit to the main road. The village does not have sufficient infrastructure to support this level of development. No mains drainage, attenuation tank to be installed and home owners will be responsible for maintenance going forward. 88% of new build target in PE1 and PE2 adjoining sites is unsustainable and does not fit into Rother’s ethos of ‘Living Well’.

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 My concerns about the local strategy
with regards to Peasmarsh developments is that it meets the requirements of social having, however other local villages have not been developed as much as Peasmarsh and as a result, Peasmarsh has been identified for development and expansion with no consideration for other areas.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No 2
The proposed development plan is mixed as it does not reflect a balanced view of the Rother District in its entire scape. In addition, with regards to Peasmarsh, the infrastructure: the area does not meet present needs and flooding, pot holes, outages and problems with flooding only exacerbated with more dwellings.

PART 2 Chapter 3 No 3
Employment is important but is met in Rye itself, local hotels and restaurants and Jempsons itself. Building more homes, will then expand more shops and retailing in the future that then takes away the character of the village, to just find land to build, which is not a responsible use of planning or resources.

PART 2 CHAPTER 4
It is good to see that Rother are making plans for the future, however with regards to-the social and critical infrastructure ie bus stops, with the homes and temporary accommodation proposed in the village and is PE5, will be offset with increased impact an policing, social care, doctors, and maintenance and upkeep due to excessive use of roads ie more potholes as well as the demographics of the village and available school spaces and resources.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7
My concern with the local plan, is it is not feasable both in respecting nature, environment and also the very essence of the village. The clientel or the size of PE5 goes against regulation of planning in addition and key to all given the Unitary authority proposals, it seems rushed through with no active consultation understanding especially PE5. It cannot protect and enhance of deciduous woodland due to felling and effect on environment.

PART 3 CHAPTER 6 NO.13
Concerns above, but in addition the impact on natural and economic and housing strategy for the area. as well as present area not meeting the needs of flooding, excessive housing, basic infrastructure already strugging to cope. Adapting an approach already imposed will also put strain on further Services ie education, policing etc already not being met.

PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
I do not believe that other areas have been considered in neighbouring villages and that Peasmarsh becomes an expensive area and loses its character in addition proposals for the village particularly PE5, does not take into account present under usage of the business units and do not allow for parking, further exhausted resources both natural, employment etc. By having similar focus as in other villages and areas mean that employment and resources are evenly spread OUT and also with the move to a super-council, would it not better for further ideas and consultation after re-organisation of local government has been need and local elections taken place ie after May 2026 elections as this is also move ethical and political
minded in the sense takes in the needs and wants of constituents council planning. I appose the plans.
PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No. 47
I am concerned with Rothers considerations and plans for Peasmarsh would-it not be further local Parish council then the issues raised an your site is not democratic but autocratic. Unless people are made aware publically and meetings arranged how can open and meaningful conversations take place. The area of the Maltings is beautiful but does not take into account two car families. As a result the new development of social and part owned part rent previously constructed have lack of parking and regularly block the highway. The proposed extension the Business path and to allocation of flats as the hectorage means that here are no guarantees that present problems, lack of parking, lack of resources ie maintenance of present social having by Sothern Housing and other Housing Associations as well as consider areas over criminal activities, draining critical resources like education and need for more teacher, buildings etc. as well as poor sewerage, increased lighting etc. my wary is that Peamarsh will become an area that destroys the community and the very beauty and heart of the village, something that has not ben taken into consideration.

I would propose a feasibility study drawn up with the Parish council and locals and to offer other suggestions such as neighbouring areas such as Beckley and other neighbouring villages, where resources and facilities are not in one area and meet the needs of all.

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 My concerns about the local strategy
with regards to Peasmarsh developments is that it meets the requirements of social having, however other local villages have not been developed as much as Peasmarsh and as a result, Peasmarsh has been identified for development and expansion with no consideration for other areas.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No 2
The proposed development plan is mixed as it does not reflect a balanced view of the Rother District in its entire scape. In addition, with regards to Peasmarsh, the infrastructure: the area does not meet present needs and flooding, pot holes, outages and problems with flooding only exacerbated with more dwellings.

PART 2 Chapter 3 No 3
Employment is important but is met in Rye itself, local hotels and restaurants and Jempsons itself. Building more homes, will then expand more shops and retailing in the future that then takes away the character of the village, to just find land to build, which is not a responsible use of planning or resources.

PART 2 CHAPTER 4
It is good to see that Rother are making plans for the future, however with regards to-the social and critical infrastructure ie bus stops, with the homes and temporary accommodation proposed in the village and is PE5, will be offset with increased impact an policing, social care, doctors, and maintenance and upkeep due to excessive use of roads ie more potholes as well as the demographics of the village and available school spaces and resources.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7
My concern with the local plan, is it is not feasable both in respecting nature, environment and also the very essence of the village. The clientel or the size of PE5 goes against regulation of planning in addition and key to all given the Unitary authority proposals, it seems rushed through with no active consultation understanding especially PE5. It cannot protect and enhance of deciduous woodland due to felling and effect on environment.

PART 3 CHAPTER 6 NO.13
Concerns above, but in addition the impact on natural and economic and housing strategy for the area. as well as present area not meeting the needs of flooding, excessive housing, basic infrastructure already strugging to cope. Adapting an approach already imposed will also put strain on further Services ie education, policing etc already not being met.

PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
I do not believe that other areas have been considered in neighbouring villages and that Peasmarsh becomes an expensive area and loses its character in addition proposals for the village particularly PE5, does not take into account present under usage of the business units and do not allow for parking, further exhausted resources both natural, employment etc. By having similar focus as in other villages and areas mean that employment and resources are evenly spread OUT and also with the move to a super-council, would it not better for further ideas and consultation after re-organisation of local government has been need and local elections taken place ie after May 2026 elections as this is also move ethical and political
minded in the sense takes in the needs and wants of constituents council planning. I appose the plans.
PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No. 47
I am concerned with Rothers considerations and plans for Peasmarsh would-it not be further local Parish council then the issues raised an your site is not democratic but autocratic. Unless people are made aware publically and meetings arranged how can open and meaningful conversations take place. The area of the Maltings is beautiful but does not take into account two car families. As a result the new development of social and part owned part rent previously constructed have lack of parking and regularly block the highway. The proposed extension the Business path and to allocation of flats as the hectorage means that here are no guarantees that present problems, lack of parking, lack of resources ie maintenance of present social having by Sothern Housing and other Housing Associations as well as consider areas over criminal activities, draining critical resources like education and need for more teacher, buildings etc. as well as poor sewerage, increased lighting etc. my wary is that Peamarsh will become an area that destroys the community and the very beauty and heart of the village, something that has not ben taken into consideration.

I would propose a feasibility study drawn up with the Parish council and locals and to offer other suggestions such as neighbouring areas such as Beckley and other neighbouring villages, where resources and facilities are not in one area and meet the needs of all.

Qu.1 The promise of adopting to climate change and reducing Flood risk as part of any new infrastructure needs much further planning, consultations and hands on investigations. Large parts of Peasmarsh are already flooding or at risk of flooding. Usage of more brownfield will only increase flooding to the homes already here.
The sewerage systems are already under pressure and there are continuous drainage problems arising So the new planning policies will not be in line with effective sustainability or adapted to climate change as promised.

Qu.5 The current infrastructure in place is already causing issues such as drainage, flooding and access to properties becoming dangerous for road users. Adding to this will only resolve in a higher population and huge risks for severe flooding, sewerage systems unable to cope and dangerous access around the village. The impact on the village will be unfair to the people who already reside here.
Adding to the population will also add Strain onto the already locally Stretched services. We require more GP surgeries, dentists and educational provisions to make this
viable. Our bus services are also under threat of cut backs and they fail to serve purpose already.

Qu.6 Looking at developmental gaps for planning would create a link between small villages and larger towns. The clear spacial divide between areas within the South East of England is what supports our sustainability and personal growth as many of these areas are farmed. linking towns by utilising this space would also create a diverse area of large populations with no green Space. we would be welcoming a vision aligned with
city living and in turn allow for more crime, more pollution and a strained community who already has no police presence.

Qu.47 The access to Malthouse lane is unsafe due to a high number of vehicles on the Maltings . There is also no infrastructure in place to Support two way traffic. The new housing development has already reduced parking, removed a layby and caused visibility problems when driving. Developing this space also has a huge impact on safety and privacy for children using the park and play areas.

Question Number: 1
The amended strategic spatial options presented in Figure 1 raise several concerns regarding their justification, deliverability, and alignment with both local and national planning policy. While the diagram seeks to illustrate a revised distribution of growth across the district, it does not provide sufficient evidence that the proposed pattern of development is supported by infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints analysis, or a transparent assessment of reasonable alternatives. In particular, the amended options appear to place disproportionate pressure on rural settlements without demonstrating that these locations can sustainably accommodate additional growth given their limited road capacity, constrained public transport, drainage and wastewater limitations, and proximity to sensitive landscapes including the High Weald AONB. The absence of clear methodology explaining how the amended options were derived, how constraints were weighed, and how the Peasmarsh and other Neighbourhood Development Plans were taken into account further undermines the robustness of the spatial strategy. As presented, the amended options do not provide a sound or evidence-based foundation for determining the future pattern of development in Rother and require further refinement and justification.
Question Number: 5
The proposed development strategy for Peasmarsh is unsound because it is not supported by a credible or deliverable infrastructure plan. The strategy allocates significant housing growth in a settlement where the existing infrastructure is already operating at or beyond capacity, yet it provides no evidence that essential upgrades can be secured or delivered within the plan period. In particular, the constrained road network—most notably Main Street—cannot safely accommodate the additional traffic without substantial junction, pedestrian, and highway improvements, none of which are identified or costed. Likewise, there is no demonstrated capacity within local drainage systems or wastewater treatment infrastructure to support further development, contrary to the requirements for sustainable water management. The absence of confirmed utility capacity, safe pedestrian routes, and commitments to expand healthcare, education, and community facilities means the strategy fails to meet the tests of deliverability and infrastructure-led growth. For these reasons, the development strategy does not comply with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan or national planning policy and should not be taken forward in its current form.

Question Number: 6
The council's assessment of the additional development strategy options for Peasmarsh is fundamentally flawed because it fails to give proper weight to the settlement's significant infrastructure constraints and does not demonstrate that any of the proposed growth levels are realistically deliverable. The evaluation treats highways capacity, drainage limitations, wastewater treatment constraints, and pedestrian safety as secondary considerations, despite these being critical determinants of whether development can proceed sustainably. By assuming that future mitigation can be secured without identifying specific schemes, funding sources, or delivery timelines, the assessment does not meet the required standard of evidence. Furthermore, the analysis does not adequately reflect the policies of the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan, particularly those relating to infrastructure-led growth, landscape protection, and settlement character. As a result, the council's appraisal does not provide a sound or justified basis for selecting any preferred development option and should be reconsidered with a more rigorous, policy-compliant assessment of infrastructure capacity and constraints.

Question Number: 13
The proposed vision and development strategy for Rye and the Eastern Settlements Cluster, including the development figures presented in Figures 23 and 24, is unsound because it fails to reflect the significant environmental, infrastructure, and service-capacity constraints that define this part of the district. The strategy appears to allocate growth at a level that is neither justified nor deliverable, particularly in settlements such as Peasmarsh, where highways limitations, drainage and wastewater constraints, and limited access to essential services have not been adequately assessed or addressed. The development figures lack a transparent evidence base and do not demonstrate compliance with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan or with national policy requirements for infrastructure-led, sustainable development. By presenting growth levels that exceed the realistic capacity of the area without identifying the necessary mitigation, funding, or delivery mechanisms, the strategy does not provide a credible or policy-compliant framework for future development and should therefore be reconsidered.

Question Number: 47
The proposed site allocations for Peasmarsh set out in Policies PE1 to PE5 are unsound because they do not adequately reflect the settlement's significant infrastructure, environmental, and landscape constraints, nor do they demonstrate compliance with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan. The cumulative scale of development implied by these allocations exceeds what the village can sustainably accommodate given the limited road capacity, unresolved pedestrian safety issues, known surface-water and drainage problems, and the absence of confirmed wastewater and utilities capacity. The allocations also fail to provide a transparent or evidence-based justification for how these sites were selected over reasonable alternatives, and they do not identify the infrastructure required to support growth, how it will be funded, or when it will be delivered. Without clear mitigation measures, costed infrastructure commitments, or a robust assessment of cumulative impacts, Policies PE1 to PE5 do not provide a deliverable or policy-compliant framework for development in Peasmarsh and should therefore be reconsidered.

Question Number: 67
The appendices relating to Peasmarsh are inadequate and do not provide the level of evidence required to justify the scale or distribution of development proposed for the village. Key technical information—particularly on highways capacity, drainage and surface-water management, wastewater treatment, utilities provision, and cumulative environmental impacts—is either missing, incomplete, or presented in a generic form that does not reflect the specific constraints of Peasmarsh. The appendices also fail to demonstrate how the proposed allocations comply with the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan or how alternative sites and growth levels were assessed and discounted. Without transparent methodology, robust site-specific assessments, or costed and deliverable infrastructure commitments, the appendices cannot be relied upon as a sound evidence base. As a result, the development strategy for Peasmarsh is not justified, not effective, and not deliverable, and the supporting appendices must be revisited and strengthened before any allocations can be taken forward.

Q5: Yes, drainage & connecting pipes in the village. Flooding risks, transport, doctor's & schools.

Q47: The amount of houses are too much for a small village with no infrastructure, what will people do for. Nothing for young people to do, too remote. It's not a town, as no cafes, stores & much more & bad transport, facilities, risk of flooding to other houses, will they be private & social, not good.

Question Number 1: Not seen
Question Number 2: This is a village - I do not want Peasmarsh to become a town
Question Number 5: Schools? Doctors? Clinics? etc.
Question Number 6: Yes we don't want any of it.
Question Number 13: No Comment
Question Number 47: Flats and work shops - big no no. Maltings has already lost old folks home to houses. Flats to close to houses in Maltings.
Question Number 67: Not seen.

Question 47 - No to any more houses on this estate parking is bad. No shop this end of the village sewage problems! Transport is bad if you don't have a car. School is not big enough. Lived here 42 years.

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 The local strategy does not reflect
the needs of local employment needs nor does it meet the needs of local residents due to lack of paring, road infrastructure and basic needs such as sewage etc. Expansion of services and business unite and flats will in the aesthetics of the village as well as an increase and effect as the already research business in the local area.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No.3
The problems I have is meeting the needs of my own business such as affordable premises but move importantly parking and access. The proposal for PE5, adds to that need with less parking. Poor road maintenance. Lack of parking leads to less customers in the demographics of the over, Most businesses are self employed so the need to have customers is important due to the very nature of business. In addition less customers will mean employer leave the village, meaning an any benefits. Equally the expansional the premises presently not only reduces aesthetics natural light and neighbourhoods which are the draw of the village If you as
a local government had same concerns would you build n your local area?

PART 2 CHAPTER 4 My concern is with regional resources. Due to its demographics and location as increase in village population to 147 names plus flats per hectarage which is ambiguous, means a drain of social and healthcare, education, refuse, policing and fire with an increase in social housing less employable adults available meaning less council tax and funding for infrastructure.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7 I do not believe in reading your
rational that the proposed business unit expansion helps the load, nature and environment leading problems.

CHAPTER 6 No 13 PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
In adding the ambiguous language of 'Hectarage' with the super council proposals for East Sussex leaves it operated the expansion and possible loss of woodland protected areas and name another advanced in general. The checks
in those properties will they require have parking and how will this be net? Leading to less paring blight are the landscape and problems with road maintenance as well as blocking emergency vehicle access. The present problems with upkeep of the social housing and lack of parking has already led to problems in the area. PE5 is not right for the area.

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 The local strategy does not reflect
the needs of local employment needs nor does it meet the needs of local residents due to lack of paring, road infrastructure and basic needs such as sewage etc. Expansion of services and business unite and flats will in the aesthetics of the village as well as an increase and effect as the already research business in the local area.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No.3
The problems I have is meeting the needs of my own business such as affordable premises but move importantly parking and access. The proposal for PE5, adds to that need with less parking. Poor road maintenance. Lack of parking leads to less customers in the demographics of the over, Most businesses are self employed so the need to have customers is important due to the very nature of business. In addition less customers will mean employer leave the village, meaning an any benefits. Equally the expansional the premises presently not only reduces aesthetics natural light and neighbourhoods which are the draw of the village If you as
a local government had same concerns would you build n your local area?

PART 2 CHAPTER 4 My concern is with regional resources. Due to its demographics and location as increase in village population to 147 names plus flats per hectarage which is ambiguous, means a drain of social and healthcare, education, refuse, policing and fire with an increase in social housing less employable adults available meaning less council tax and funding for infrastructure.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7 I do not believe in reading your
rational that the proposed business unit expansion helps the load, nature and environment leading problems.

CHAPTER 6 No 13 PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
In adding the ambiguous language of 'Hectarage' with the super council proposals for East Sussex leaves it operated the expansion and possible loss of woodland protected areas and name another advanced in general. The checks
in those properties will they require have parking and how will this be net? Leading to less paring blight are the landscape and problems with road maintenance as well as blocking emergency vehicle access. The present problems with upkeep of the social housing and lack of parking has already led to problems in the area. PE5 is not right for the area.

Qu. 42
NEED NEW schools, doctors, Dentists first Before any new houses. Major drainage works Road Surface Replacement. There are loads of things that Need fixing Before you add more houses to the Village By adding more houses you will only make the Rubbish, drainage and Roads worse.

Qu.1. Where are the Residents of the new houses going to send their kids to school as all local School are full where are the residents of the New house going to get medical and dental care as it takes weeks to get an appointment already.

Qu. 5. Main drainage needs updating to Support new
house as drains overflowing is common.

Qu.47 Peasmarsh does not have the inforstructure In Place to have that amount of houses.

UPGRADE the Inforstructure first.

Qu. 42
NEED NEW schools, doctors, Dentists first Before any new houses. Major drainage works Road Surface Replacement. There are loads of things that Need fixing Before you add more houses to the Village By adding more houses you will only make the Rubbish, drainage and Roads worse.

Qu.1. Where are the Residents of the new houses going to send their kids to school as all local School are full where are the residents of the New house going to get medical and dental care as it takes weeks to get an appointment already.

Qu. 5. Main drainage needs updating to Support new
house as drains overflowing is common.

Qu.47 Peasmarsh does not have the inforstructure In Place to have that amount of houses.

UPGRADE the Inforstructure first.

Q1: We agree in principal regarding climate change and therefore disagree with any building that interfers with any natural heritage. Do not believe that building in small villages will have any advantage to the 'housing crisis' cost of infrastructure, damage caused will far exceed the benefit. Villages do not offer many working opportunities, travelling to large towns for employment and the increase in car use this will entail.

Objective 6: A small village would not create economic prosperity except for the planners and builders who would then disappear once building has been completed.

Objectives 7-11: Building houses in a small village is using greenfill land with no infrastructure in place will cost so much money and potentially affect housing and residence already living in the area. Where would all these extra people come from?

Q5: Very concerned that the infrastructure is not in place for further house building. The cost of this would outway the benefits. Health, social care, education is also a great concern with the increased population of a small village.

Q6: Concerned that plans and strategies may be in place but will these ever be implemented, as the cost and difficulty in getting infrastructure in place will never happen.

Q13: Very concerned that several sites in our small village have been targeted for development. These sites are mainly designated as green space with archaeological and heritage sites. These green areas should remain so not built on.

Q47 - PE1-PE4: There is no water, sewage, electricity available. Very small primary school heritage site, green space. Highway full of pot holes. Would get worse with heavy lorry trraffic. One bus route only. Main route to Rye traffic increase, quiet village. Limited work available in village people to have to larger towns. Access to extra houses point in road at top of hill, once site has a large slope. Why ruin a landscape to then put up further foliage to hide the house. High Weald National Landscape and archealogical notification area so build here!! Should not be built on only small pump house for villagers. SE Water cannot cope with the houses they serve at the moment. Water supply to currant housing could be affected.

Q47 - PE5: Small area for these flats, how high are you proposing to built upto will completely ruin the village as this is an old village not the centre of London.

Q67: To build in a green space does not help the environment. The government strategy on build build build will not help us to get to net zero. We already have social housing in the village.

Conflict with the 2024 Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-28.

Referring to the 2024 Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-28, PE1 and PE3 are outside the Development Boundary for Peasmarsh. PE1 in the Development Plan is labelled for "Possible Longer Term" development but not short term as this application is implying. Also the Development Plan suggests it's suitable for 38 dwellings if combined with the old Football Ground, and not the 70 on the planning application. If this application is agreed it makes the Village Development Plans worthless, not only to Peasmarsh but to all other villages that have produced such plans and sets a precedent for developers to proceed ruining our rural areas with total disregard to the local occupants feelings. PE1, PE2 ad PE3 have previously had planning permission refused although PE2 is now registered as a Development area.

Road access
Both PE1 and PE2 have debatable access onto the A268. In 1971 a similar development was refused because of it's access onto the A268. To quote:-

"The site abuts a principle traffic road (A268) and the additional stopping, standing and turning that the development would generate would cause interruption in the free flow of traffic and increase traffic difficulties and danger, the applicants do not control sufficient land to provide an access to modern estate road standards."

The traffic since then has increased dramatically and the safety risk very much higher.

Are the council and or Highways Authority likely to impose any parking and or vehicle movement restrictions, being that the entrance to the PE1 site is very close to the brow of the hill, especially prior to and during the demolition of the Garden House? Although this proposed entrance is just within the 30mph zone it is also within the No overtaking Zone so parking of heavy goods vehicles waiting to enter the site will have to wait up elsewhere causing more chaos and safety risks within the village.

When development is ongoing at all sites, what conditions are to be imposed to prevent mud and other debris being transferred onto the highway. Will there be vehicle wash down facilities?

High Water table
This particularly applies to PE1 and PE2 which are either side of my property The geological soil structure means that there is a layer of clay not far below below the surface preventing natural drainage through the soil in the event of rain and causing a high water table in the area. I can tell by the damp level and water ingress into an inspection pit that I have that the water table is less than a metre below the surface especially after heavy rain and I'm near the top of the hill. Despite the recent relatively dry summer with the recent deluge of rain the water table rose to within a metre of the ground surface. During the winter months this will rise even further. It is not unusual for there to be standing water over this land and the ground becomes so sodden that trees that survived two hurricanes in the 1980s are now pulling up from there roots because the ground can no longer hold them firm.

There are Land drains cross my property and I assume Oaklands originally draining into Pippins although the drainage pond in Pippins was filled in by a previous owner adding to the flooding problem of the site.

I need to be assured that any development of Oaklands will not increase the drainage problem to my land any further and that the developers will maintain if not improve a land drainage system.

Wild life
From what I witness on my own land there must be, rabbits, squirrels foxes, bats, moles, hedgehogs, snakes and numerous types of birds that must also inhabit the land of Pippins and Oaklands, who's habitat will all be disturbed/destroyed if the developments goes ahead. It also states in the refusal of 1971 and to quote again:-

"-it is intended that existing uses of the land should remain for the best part undisturbed and where, in the main, only development which is essential to meet the needs of agriculture should be permitted-"

Most people, like myself, chose to live in Peasmarsh to enjoy the peace and quiet of the country side. This is slowly being destroyed and will not be improved by the proposed development. If I wished to live on or near to an estate I would not have moved to Peasmarsh.

Infrastructure
If these developments go ahead with the 143 proposed new houses the village hasn't the inter structure to support them. The village infrastructure is already at breaking point. As mentioned in the 2024 Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-28 the drainage system is at full capacity and at the point of "bursting", the mains electrical supply is fragile and we experience frequent loss of supply. The mains water supply is old and fails leaving the area without water. Mobile phone and internet connections are poor and unreliable. Loading these even further will cause further problems.

With an increase of 143 dwellings, a large increase of children can be expected and the village school has not got the capacity to take this number. The school may possibly be forced to close the pre-school group to make way for these additional children. The pre school group is at capacity due to other groups being forced to close and the closing of the Peasmarsh group would leave the immediate area without a pre-school facility.

Those that will occupy these properties, especially if they come from a more urban area, will expect a more regular public transport system than we have at present. We have a 2 hourly bus service and I am told that last Thursday one of the buses to Rye was cancelled leaving passengers unable to get to Rye Market and make their vital appointments. This will only encourage the use of environmental unfriendly private transport.

Peasmarsh has doubled in size in the last 50 or so years with no improvement of the interstructure. In my time in the village I have seen the development of Farleys Way. The Old Hop gardens, Farm Gardens, Woodlands close and the restructure of the Malting plus a number of infill. Enough is enough further development will be of no benefit to the village. There is limited local work which only encourages travelling further afield for work for any new residents.

It is for these reasons that I object to these developments going ahead.

143 proposed new dwellings in a village that will increase its size by over 25% is in my view disproportionate. Infrastructure requirements need to be addressed before any large developments are allowed.

1: surface water nun off.

Peasmansh has a large area of high ground to the south of the village which means that the A268 acts as a barrier to the water flowing north towards the River Rother. There one only two points that allow the flow across, both of which are restricted by pipe size. At Tanhouse have this already floods over the road before development of PE1 & PE2 which will drain in that direction.

2: Sewerage System.
This is already at full capacity and many times the pumping station cannot cope. This results in excess being released into the watercourse to the River Rother - totally unacceptable. We cannot allow more large scale developments until this is mitigated.

The need for more Doctors and dentists need to be addressed. The bus service is inadequate for residents to get to work. The roads for commuters are very busy and require mayor upgrades as potholes increase and not repaired.

Qu.1 The proposed plans do not appear to have been thoroughly thought through by proper site visits Local knowledge from people already living in the area
Just because an area has a certain amenity does not justify extra properties. The point system for the housing allocations is very unfair. This is an area of green belt once built on can never be rectified. About the issues connected with development in Peasmarsh with be left to the residents once the developer moves out.

Qu. 5. Infrastructure is a huge issue within Peasmarsh The road through the village of heavy goods vehicles coming through is quite busy and has a large number of heavy goods vehicles coming through. The area suffers from power failures, water issues from surface water and in some cases flooding. The proposed developments will increase these issues to an unacceptable level.

Qu. 13 One 4 the reasons Peasmarsh has been given a larger point system for allocation is due to having Jempsons supermarket and associated business like petrol station, cafe, pharmacy etc as they do not have this facility. This is so way. We are being penalised due to this amenity in the village People travel from villages to this facility so why we we penalised with extra housing became of this.

Qu.47. Sites PE1-PES all have similar issues and hopefully other respondents to this will update with how development on there sites not only affects Them
for building on. but also why this land is not suitable.
Personally, PE3 Tanyard gives me concern regarding proposed development. This site was rejected in the original Peasmarsh Development plan. due to bad issues & historical location from the church to the village Why all of a, sudden this location has been decide as a great location to build on.
Surface water from the area of the church and down the field into the garden of the properties on the boundary are very high. With extra concrete, roads, roofs this issue will be even greater. Where will the water go? Our grass is green through the year without being hosepipe watered. There is No change in the moisture of our garden and the soil never dries out. I attach photos showing the grass throughout the year. It never changes.

Without excellent drainage systems which would have to be maintained, This development would cause unacceptable harm to existing residents on Main Street.
Enclose pics of flooding this year. All the sites proposed have issues with the increase of properties, infrastructure and population. Many people who also moved
by London authorities do not want to be in a village away from family and support network and village life in general. So who exactly are these hours Many decisions made now by authority without any knowledge of the area and its issues. To build just to keep to a target is totally
wrong in my opinion and planning rules appear o have been removed, So that anything goes.

Qu.47 I HAVE BEEN TO THE MEETINGS AS REGARD THIS PREPOSED PLAN FOR YET MORE HOUSING IN PEASMARSH IT is SUCH A PRETTY VILLAGE - BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS LOST IT'S LOVELY VILLAGE ATMOSPHERE - WE DO NOT HAVE ANY AMENITIES OTHER THAN 1 FAIRLY LARGE SHOP AND GARAGE WHICH I HAVE TO SAY IS A" GOD SEND".
SCHOOL LANE 1S SUCH A BUSY LANE AND TRAFFIC DONT SLOW DOWN GOING UP OR DOWN AND LOTS OF LARGE HEAVY LORRIES USE THIS ROAD-THE SURFACE OF THE ROAD IS REALLY BAD AS REGARDS THE USE OF THESE HEAVY VEHICLES NIGHT TIME YOU GET A LOT OF VERY FAST DRIVEN VEHICLES UP AND DOWN THE BUS SERVICE ISNT GREAT BUT IT

IS GOOD TO HAVE -HOWEVER I UNDER STAND THEY WISH TO REDUCE THIS SERVICE HOW MUCH MUCH MORE WILL WE HAVE TO GIVE UP IN A VILLAGE YOU WANT TO EXPAND IN SIZE -THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE VILLAGE AND YET YOU WANT to EXPAND THE SIZE OF THE VILLAGE - WE HAVE 2 PLACES WHERE you CAN EAT (PUBS) GENERAL ROADSIDE HEDGES GRASS VERGES ETC. ARE MAINTAINED VERY WELL - YEAR OUR COMMUNITY CHARGE GOES UP EVERY TIME AND THE ROADSIDE + HEDGE GETS WORSE As THE YEARS GO BYE. YOU STILL GET THE FLOODING DOWN THE FIELD WHICH RUNS DOWN SCHOOL LANE AND FLOODS OUT INTO PEOPLE'S GARDENS AND THE MAIN ROAD WHICH IN WINTER TIME IS DANGEROUS - THE FIELD HAS AN ENTRANCE OPPOSITE My HOUSE WHICH WOULD NOT COPE WITH VEHICLE'S COMING OUT AND IN.

WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DOCTOR'S ETC. AND WE NEED SIGN'S UP TOP+ BOTTOM of SCHOOL LANE SAYING NO "HGV's"

WE LOSE OUR POWER EVERYTIME WE HAVE BAD WEATHER As THE RAIN POURS DOWN THE ROAD (CHURCH ROAD) AND FLOODS THE ELECTRIC GENERATOR. SOMETIMES IT'S FOR 2 DAY's WHICH HAS INPACT ON SO MANY LOCAL RESIDENCES WE ARE ALWAYS HAVING TO MANAGE WITHOUT WATER AS WELL AS "POWER"

HOW CAN YOU BRING MORE HOUSING AND REDUCE WHAT SMALL SERVICE'S WE HAVE - AND IF YOU ARE EXPANDING SEVERAL OTHER VILLAGES THE INFORSTRUCTOR US GOING TO GET WORSE AND I FEEL WILL GO DOWN IN VALUE.

I HAVE TO SAY As A PERSON THAT HAS CHOSE TO END HER DAYS IN SUCH A PRETTY LOVELY WELCOMING VILLAGE IS REALLY CONCERNED AND WORRIED AT WHAT ELSE IN THE
FUTURE WILL HOLD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE. WHY DO YOU HAVE "TO DESTROY" OUR COUNTYSIDE.

1
All villages were encouraged to form a Local Plan (the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan - PNDP), which was accepted by Rother District Council in 2024. This was intended to ensure that the local council would use it as a template for future consultations and planning decisions.
A small committee worked for months to develop this plan on behalf of us villagers.
The High Weald National Landscape (formerly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) is on my doorstep; my property backs directly onto it.
This is our heritage, farmed by local families for generations. The field in question has natural springs that erupt from the ground.
We should be preserving this area of natural beauty. I feel there has been no regard for our village or its surrounding scenery, and I strongly object to any development on Tanyard Field.
5
Regarding infrastructure needs:
Our utilities are outdated, particularly the pumping station, which dates back to around the 19th century. The drains, of similar age, are poorly maintained and frequently blocked, often overflowing with water and raw sewage into the road.
On several occasions, sewage has erupted through the drainage system into my garden, spreading across my patio when the drains could not cope. A couple of years ago on Mothering Sunday, the situation was so severe that I was unable to leave my property. While others were enjoying the day, I was dealing with blocked drains and sewage. Thankfully, on that occasion, it did not enter my home.
This system is already struggling and cannot cope with existing demand, let alone the addition of more houses. The high water table has been a persistent problem for many years.
We also experience frequent power cuts, broadband outages, and burst water pipes, which have required residents to collect water from emergency supply stations. These are ongoing issues that must be addressed before any further development is considered.
Congestion in the Maltings has led to cars being double-parked and mounted on verges, which has damaged the grassed areas and left the roads broken and in need of repair. It feels unsafe when I walk my dog around the block for exercise.
I have previously lost broadband with BT for four days because cabinets and connection boxes became flooded. I rely on broadband to watch television, and it is my main source of company and entertainment during dark nights.
Heavy and prolonged rainfall has nowhere to drain and the situation is only likely to worsen.
During periods of water shortages, I am registered as vulnerable and have had water delivered on several occasions.
Uneven footpaths also make it difficult to walk safely around the village during the day, let alone at night.
6
Access to the school via School Lane is unsafe. Parked cars on pavements, trailers, and abandoned vehicles filled with rubbish severely restrict access. This creates congestion and makes it inaccessible not only for me, but also for parents with young children.
Disabled access is effectively impossible, and it would be extremely difficult for emergency vehicles to pass through.
There is no safe route to school when cars are blocking the pavement and the road itself is too narrow.
In these circumstances, proposing further development that would exit onto an already overcrowded road is completely unreasonable.
This development should be refused. at PE3 TANYARD FIELD
13
The proposed vision and development appear to be entirely misguided.
The allocation of development behind my home would not only be an eyesore, but would also result in a loss of privacy.
The view of the High Weald National Landscape, along with the peace and quiet we currently enjoy, would be lost forever.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the planning proposal. on TANYARD field (PE3)
47
I have a major objection to the proposed planning allocations for PE3 Tanyard Field and PE5 Maltings Business Park.
PE5 - Maltings Business Park
This small business park was created to support local businesses. I was surprised to see it included as a potential redevelopment site in the proposed plans.
The car park is regularly used by the local community for football matches, fetes, jubilees, and other village events.
It is a valuable community asset that has served residents for many years. The loss of this space would have a significant impact on the wider community, and it should not be removed from local use.
PE3 - Tanyard Field
Tanyard Field has, for as long as I can remember, been farmed by the local farmer.
The land has had numerous applications to develop it over many years, all of which have been refused.
The land contains natural springs.
When the field was rolled in 1995/96, it caused significant flooding to my home at 1 Dundee Cottage, and nearby neighbouring buildings.
It was concluded that rolling the grass altered the drainage and caused water to run off with such force that it led to flooding.
We required assistance from the fire brigade at the time.
Following this, the landowner dug a ditch at the bottom of our properties to assist with drainage.
We were told this ditch would be maintained annually, but it has only been cleared once.
I have raised concerns about the lack of maintenance and have received no response.
A culvert was also installed at the front of my property to help manage water flow.
The grass has never been rolled again, but residents were assured that the drainage ditch above the properties would be regularly maintained by the owner to protect our homes from flooding.
This has not happened.
As a result, our gardens regularly hold standing water.
If a large development were permitted on this land, it would create a serious and unacceptable flood risk.
Securing home insurance is already difficult, and further development would only make this worse.
1 Dundee Cottage and nearby properties are all on a monthly unblocking scheme.
Contractors attend regularly to flush the system through.
This arrangement was put in place after repeated flooding incidents, including one on Mothering Sunday a few years ago when the system became blocked and I was unable to leave my property due to surface water and raw sewage outside my home.
Conway carries out this work on behalf of South East Water as a regular preventative service to protect my property and that of my neighbours.
Their teams attend at all hours, often late into the evening, when the system begins to fail.
The flashing lights from service vehicles and the disruption have become a constant feature of living here.
The fact that a routine monthly flushing programme is required clearly demonstrates that the drainage system is not coping.
Many of the properties backing onto Tanyard Field have wells and culverts to help manage groundwater, yet flooding remains an ongoing issue.
Introducing large-scale development in this location would significantly increase that risk.
I also refer you to Rother District Council's own document dated 22 February 1990, reference RR/90/0021/P.
This field is located within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
Any development on this site would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape and would have a catastrophic impact on the rural nature of the area.
Local residents use this countryside to walk their dogs and enjoy the peace and quiet of the surrounding landscape.
Children use the field for sledging in winter.
The amenity and privacy of those whose homes back onto Tanyard Field would be permanently lost.
Accepting this site would set a precedent and encourage further unsuitable applications in the vicinity.
A few years ago, homes were built adjoining the main road as a so-called compromise.
Now yet another application has been proposed.
This pattern raises serious concern.
The suggestion that the site would accommodate only 15 dwellings is unrealistic.
Based on past experience, there is a genuine fear that, once approved, pressure would follow for increased numbers.
In recent years, proposals associated with this land have included developments of up to 100 houses.
The field slopes steeply northwards and naturally drains in that direction, making it unsuitable for housing and highly likely to worsen drainage problems.
It contains numerous natural springs, which remain active to this day.
Water can be seen rising from the centre of the field.
The heavy clay soil is largely impermeable, meaning heavy rainfall runs off rapidly, causing flooding and damage to properties along Main Street.
This runoff places additional strain on the combined drainage systems serving the village.
In your own correspondence dated 22 February 1990 (reference RR/90/0021/P), consultation with Southern Water concluded that the site could not be adequately drained.
Surface water runoff is already a significant issue throughout the village.
Vehicle access to the site is inadequate and unsafe.
This long-established green field also supports wildlife, including bats, hedgehogs, tawny owls, woodpeckers, badgers, and other species.
As an elderly resident with a free bus pass, I am unable to travel before 9.00 am.
This limits my ability to attend appointments or access services.
Traffic calming measures are needed through the village, including zebra crossings for elderly residents and young children who already live here.
Public transport provision is poor, with buses frequently cancelled.
Footpaths require resurfacing, as they are uneven and rocky.
Tree roots have lifted sections of pavement, creating trip hazards, and overhanging trees need to be trimmed back.
Hedges encroaching onto footpaths should be regularly cut and maintained.
Parked cars blocking pavements, particularly along School Lane, should be consistently enforced by local parking authorities, as the pavements are often unusable.
Benches should be reinstated around the village, as many elderly residents rely on them for rest.
I also lost my television service for four days when broadband cabinets became flooded.
As an elderly person living alone, broadband and television are my primary source of company and connection to the outside world.

1
All villages were encouraged to form a LOCAL PLAN (the Peasmarsh
Neighbourhood Development Plan) PNCP accepted by Rother Council in
2024.
In order that the local council would use this as a template going forward
in consultations.
Villagers worked together with a small committee to develop the local
plan; it took months to do this.
You do not mention the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, referred to
as HIGH WEALD NATIONAL LANDSCAPE, only (Landscape). This is our
heritage that has been farmed by local farmers for years.
This field has geysers erupting from it.
And we should be preserving this area.
I feel you have no regard for our village compared to other villages. We
feel you are bombarding us with huge planning expectations and large
building numbers for new homes on sites that, over the years, have been
turned down as unsuitable for planning. Also, we feel you are sidelining
our plan, making us feel what a waste of time doing a local plan was if it
is ignored and was merely an exercise to make us think you were
consulting us.

5
Regarding infrastructure needs
Our utilities are outdated, especially with regard to our pumping station
that was built around the 19th century.
Drains of similar age are not maintained, often blocked, overflowing with
water and sewage, not only flooding but erupting into the road as raw
sewage.
This system cannot cope currently, let alone if more houses are added to
the system. The high water table problem has been known for many
years.
Many power cuts, broadband outages and water pipes bursting, resulting
in having to collect water from water stations, is an ongoing problem.
When the New Development in the Maltings was built, it left roads around
the development damaged, and residents were promised this would be
re-tarmacked by the developer, but it was not. Years later it is still not
repaired. Highways own the road and will not fix the potholes until they
get dangerously too deep.
Parking on the new development was to be in their parking space
(An allocated parking space) behind houses, but most park on the road at
the front of their homes, causing congestion in an already
parking-problem estate.
As they are only allocated one space, most families have two or more
vehicles.
Due to housing being unaffordable, teenagers have no choice but to
either live at home longer or seek property elsewhere out of the area
where they work.
The sheltered housing was out of sorts, a large eyesore which looked into
the Maltings houses, losing their privacy, and is very much an eyesore
and looks completely out of character in the surrounding area and out of
place. Again, the lay-by outside, designed for ambulance drop-off, etc., is
abused by people abandoning their cars there.
The New Development experienced raw sewage back-blocked up into
some of the houses, along with flooding and also outside their home
sewage and surface water issues at the new property,
Which had to be addressed shortly after.
The congestion in the Maltings has double cars parked on verges, leaving
verges looking ugly and the surrounding properties looking in huge
decline.
The roads are broken, needing repair. The council property is looking run
down and not maintained. Surely these things need sorting before any
redevelopment plans for future developments.
The access route from the main road onto the Maltings has caused
arguments because of parking on a junction or nearby, which means you
are entering on the wrong side of parked cars into the estate, an accident
waiting to happen.
Parking is a huge problem on normal days, but with football matches this
again adds to the pressure and is a nightmare getting on and off the
estate.
Broadband has improved as Gigaclear has helped, but most villagers lost
broadband with BT for four days due to all their boxes filling with water,
etc.
Climate has had a bad effect. Surface run-off from heavy, constant rain
has nowhere to go and is only going to get worse.

6
The local school has declined in numbers due to lack of local families
(birth numbers) within the village. Recently, when doing a Jubilee, it was
found most children travelled in from Rye and other villages.
Also, the lack of specialised poor SEND has taken children to
neighbouring schools where they could support their individual learning
needs.
Again, surely better funding and infrastructure could be concentrated on
the local primary school.
All schools should be accountable where their SEND funding is being
implemented and used in their school, with accountability and
transparency.
Reassuring it is being used for the correct implementation of the child's
needs.
Not flooring, cooling systems, etc., but actual help for children with
special needs.
The access to school via School Lane is unsafe. Parked cars on
pavements, trailers and dumped vehicles full of rubbish limit parking and
crowd access and are not easily accessible by emergency vehicles.
Let alone a safe route to school, with cars blocking the pavement as the
road is too narrow, and a proposed development is ridiculous, leading out
onto what is an overcrowded road, is barbaric and this development
should be refused at PE3 TANYARD FIELD

13
The proposed vision and development seem completely wrong.
The allocation of proposed homes is not in proportion to the village
needs.
Our village feels like we are being forced to swallow new homes more
than neighbouring villages; this is not fair.
The last council homes built recently in the Maltings ended up with few
locals being homed, and the council housing those from Bexhill,
Tonbridge, etc. There is no reassurance that this would not happen again.

47
I have a major objection to the planning on PE3 TANYARD FIELD
And PE5 MALTINGS BUSINESS PARK
1) Maltings Business Park
This small business park was created for small start-up local community
businesses, but recently the tenants have told us they were priced out,
rents doubled and, as a result, they had to move to Rye Harbour for more
affordable units.
They were not informed of any proposal of redevelopment ideas and, like
us, were surprised to see you include this as a consideration in
redevelopment in the proposed site plans.
It is a valuable area of local employment and this was its original purpose
for small start-up business units.
The car park is used by the local community for football matches, fetes,
jubilees, etc., and is a valuable asset for the whole wider community that
we do not want to lose. This valuable asset has been used for years by
the villagers and helps to keep the congestion problem down for visitors in
the Maltings, avoiding over-congestion in parked cars and lack of parking
spaces.
The grit bin is stored on the grass verge here and funded by the Parish
Council, which keeps the junction usable in snow conditions.
The car park helps reduce parking problems and over-parking in the
Maltings and this should have been donated to the recreation ground for
the local community to use, but when we asked we were told that as it
was an asset we would not be allowed recently.
Disabled people park here and watch their families play.
2) PE3 TANYARD FIELD
This land has historically been farmed by a local farmer.
The owner has tried to develop this land on
countless applications purely to make money, with no worry of the
consequence.
I am sure they are aware of the natural springs in the land.
When the land was rolled in 1995/96, it caused flooding to cottages and the Horse and Cart public house.
As a result the gardens are full of water if Large Development were
allowed and built here this would cause huge flooding risk getting
insurance is a problem too and the historical springs would be lost
forever
The cottages and the Horse and Cart are on a monthly unblocking
scheme, where they come out and flush the system through, as on
Mothering Sunday a few years ago the system blocked up and was
flooded with surface water and raw sewage outside their homes. Conway
do this on behalf of South East Water. They are aware the system is not
coping. All houses that back onto Tanyard Field, some have wells to help
with this and culverts, but water flooding is a problem.
Over 40 years, the landowner has revamped their planning application for
Tanyard Field and has been rejected on appeals.
I hope you can still refer to your own document issued by Rother DC on
22 February 1990 under reference RR/90/0021/P.
This field is located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
/ HIGH WEALD NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
Any development here would be detrimental to the character and
appearance of the landscape and would have a catastrophic impact on
the rural character of the area.
Locals use this countryside to walk their dogs and embrace the rural
peace and quiet of the beautiful surroundings; kids sledge here in winter.
The amenity and privacy would be lost for those backing onto Tanyard
Field.
Any acceptance of this site would encourage other similar unsuitable
future applications in the vicinity. As of a few years ago, the homes built
adjoining the main road were built as a compromise and now yet another
application has been requested.
The suggestion the site would accommodate 15 dwellings is a very naive
understanding of the issue. We know if this went ahead the landowner
would push for more and more, as in recent years his persistence, the
largest involved 100 houses.
The county fields steeply drain towards the north, making it completely
unsuitable for housing and will cause a drainage problem.
The field is filled with many natural springs which remain there to this day.
Water spouts rising from the middle of the field; the heavy clay soil makes
the surface completely impermeable, so heavy rain simply runs off,
causing considerable problems and damage to properties lining Main
Street.
This in return overloads combined drainage running down through Main
Street; your own letter in 1990 references that, in consultation with
Southern Water, the site is not satisfied that the site can be adequately
drained.
Surface water run-off is a major problem throughout the village.
The vehicle access is inadequate and unsafe.
This ancient green field supports many species and wildlife.

PE1
My concern that a building estate can be proposed turning out onto a
main road on a brow of the hill is unsafe.
Jempson's already has a flooding issue with water and sewage at the
entrance to their car park.
Again, their proposal could not be a few homes but a major development
which would impact the traffic flow in this area and impact drainage
problems.
PE2
Traffic needs calming through the village with zebra crossings for young
and elderly who currently live here already.
Public transport is lacking; often buses are cancelled. There used to be a
direct bus to Hastings; now you have to change and it does not always
connect.
Fares have doubled, making it unaffordable to young families. Trains are
often cancelled and are unreliable for those who are housed in rural
areas with no good transport connection for work or college needs.
More money should be directed into sixth-form provisions at local
colleges.
Doctor surgeries are at maximum; getting an appointment is not easy.
Waiting for hospital appointments can be long too, and there are no
dentist appointments unless private, and they are constantly pushing
NHS clients back to the waiting list.
These services need improving to be able to cope with the influx of new
families into rural life.