Q47 - PE1 to PE5:
Peasmarsh's local infrastructure is somewhat over stretched already. The addition of 143 houses in the village will not help the situation. The Southern Water foul sewer system cannot cope with demand at all times. It has frequent mechanical failures and spillages into the local watercourses. Therefore, untreated sewerage finds its way into the River Rother not ideal! The drinking water supply has not been updated since water privatisation in the 1980s. At that time Mid-Sussex Water Co joined the South East Water Co, which has become somewhat infamous for their lack of service. The area now suffers frequent outages, low pressure problems and leaks to water mains and pipes. The electricity supply into the village is mainly from overhead cables. There are frequent power cuts and dips in power, especially in the wake of high winds and thunder storms. Internet connection is not good, it can be a very slow process connecting to the system. Since the new year we have had a three day shut-down of the BT system. The village has no on-site dentist or doctors surgery's. One of the nearby doctors practise's has stopped taking new patients from Peasmarsh. Peasmarsh primary school is a Victorian building which has been modernised and extended about as far as possible. It would be difficult to accommodate a large influx of extra pupils which would probably come with the proposed developments.

Q47 - PE1 and PE2:
Main Street the A268 is the road through the village, sites PE1 and PE2 will have new road junctions with it. Site PE1 and to a lesser extent PE2 will have road exits onto the A268 just below the apex of the hill by the The Cock Public House. Turning right out of these functions will be hazardous due to traffic coming over the hill by the pub into the village. More so if the speed limit is not being observed. Also, the entrances are somewhat obscured to traffic coming up the hill towards the pub by a bend in the road.

Q47 - PE3:
This site will also exit onto the A268 just above the junction with Church Lane where the speed limit reduces from 50mph to 30mph near a bend in the road which causes obstructions to vision of the junction. Again a somewhat hazardous exit point. Main Street (268) is a busy road all year round. From Easter until October the volume of traffic is highest. The road is the route for traffic heading from the Weald area to the A259 coast road for Rye, Camber Sands and the Kent channel ports. There is also a high volume of local traffic due to a supermarket and combined petrol station in the village. Both well used by local people fromt he nearby towns and villages and passing trade. This plus HGVs and delivery truck all adds to the volume of traffic.

Q47 - PE5:
Although this is a "brownfield" site due to its mixed use (domestic and commercial) it will increase traffic in the Maltings area. Also, it seems there is a lack of off road parking which will cause congestion in an already heavily parked up area.

Q47 - PE1-PE5:
Lack of public transport 2 hourly bus service only going to Rye & Northiam making it impossible to make appointments. Bus timings do not connect with onward buses or trains. We have a small school of 4 classes. Where do all the extra primary age children go? People have to travel to Rye for GP surgeries or dentists. Mains water & Sewerage systems have not been updated in the last 30 years, despite large numbers of new homes.

Q47 - PE1 & PE2:
45 & 70 new homes will create a lot of excess traffic at peak times for work & schools. The distance between the exit roads for these estates are less than 100 metres apart with poor vision on to the main road. Coming out you can't see what is coming round to the bend or over the brow of the hill. These turnings are opposite a farm road with large vehicles turning in & out slowly.

Q47 - PE3:
A lot of drainage problems here, water runs across the road in winter causing dangerous icy conditions.

Q47 - PE5:
A small site with units & flats there will be very little parking space particularly when lorries are delivering to the units.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.

Please see attached photos of surface water which runs down to tanhouse lane this is just beside site PE1 , these fields run with surface water for weeks and weeks.

To start off with I would like to stress that the meetings held regarding the planning overall have not been fair. The first initial meeting was held to discuss concerns with the Rother district planning officer who never showed and we later found they cancelled at short notice which was only made apparent on the day of the meeting so villagers couldn't even raise concerns or ask questions. This is no way a fair system and a poor show!

I would further like to add that the online submissions are not easy and complicated which further adds to putting people off stressing their concerns over these 'new developments' which only adds to an unfair system!

Qu.1 During the initial Local development plans, the proposed document did Not include the following: PE2 which is an extension next to PEI essentially. PE4 which was never included in the initial village development plans. PE5 which was never included in the initial village development plan. PE5 especially is ridiculous for so many reasons to follow but to find out the local businesses in the existing units that are rented out via contract had no clue that PE5 was a suggested site and is not fair! It would be very detrimental to the local businesses.



Qu. 5 The Drainage and sewage system within Peasmarsh in particular 'The Maltings' area are badly outdated from a capacity and age point of view. We have lived in peasmarsh for 4 years and each year raw sewage has come up through the drains and into the roads. This not only presents a health risk but proves there are problems with the drainage and sewage systems in place currently which voids the report of the drainage being adequate and there not being a floodrisk. You only have to walk down the main street and almost all the drains are blocked up with debris, clearly this has not been looked
at from a development point of view. I have spoken with neighbours and found on numerous occasions they have had sewage back up into their homes through no fault of their own. Peasmarsh naturally has a high water table due to its location and this combined with surface water from heavy rainfall becomes an issue. If we take the last year in comparison, rainfall has been at one of its highest levels
and is only forecast to get worse in years to come due to climate change. There have been 2 occasions recently within the recreation grounds of potential sink holes. One was dug up and found an 'OLD' drain had collapsed causing a large hole to appear and the second which very recently (week commencing 9th march 2026) was addressed which further adds to drainage infrastructure being inadequate and questionable.

Qu. 5 The utilities within peasmarsh are outdated and although some efforts have been made to upgrade these for instance the broadband with gigaclear there are still properties without faster fiber broadband and have no options other than to keep old copper lines running, our house for one which gigaclear has told me they won't be returning to add a fixture for connectivity. This is due to access issues from an already installed infrastructure and telegraph pole system only 2 feet from our drive. The Broadband in particular was down in the village for 4 days due to a green junction box being flooded so again this is unreliable and costly.

Qu. 5 Parking in the Maltings area is a big problem with people blocking access to driveways, parking over dropped kerbs, parking on grass verges which then turn into mud baths and damaging the footpaths, and parking on the junctions opposite where PE5 is proposed. This is against the highway code and most of all dangerous. Photo attached. Adding further houses on the PE5 site would only make things worse adding a minimum further 6 vehicles if not double that being most households have 2 vehicles these days to an already over crowded road. PE5 includes a community car park which locals and the business unit occupants use daily so they can use the business units football recreation ground, play park and football pavilion. Taking this car park away leaves no where other than the already busy overflowing road to park for people to use the recreation ground and play area. I know for a fact people from outside the village like to use the play ground for their children to play in, in particular children from the village primary school who don't live in peasmarsh but neighbouring villages.

I'd also like to add that emergency services frequently come down The Maltings due to elderly residential housing, access is tight at the best of times which adding more houses to PE5 would cause a negative impact to existing residents and further causing potential dangers if access was blocked due to an influx of additional vehicles.

Outside the elderly residential housing is a dedicated bay for emergency vehicles however this is often used by people who have nowhere else to park. Photo attached.

The roads in The Maltings, Main Street and throughout peasmarsh are in an unacceptable state. Countless times I have reported damage to the roads, pot holes and raised iron works but each time the council says 'it's not a priority' adding further houses to The Maltings and surrounding area would only make this situation incredibly worse. The increasing volume of traffic driving up and down the roads is not going to be beneficial to anyone. Issues still to this date have not been fixed.

Report references: October 2024 - POT027514 - not fixed December 2025 - POT045086 - not fixed February 2026 - POT059434 - not fixed
All the above references are from East Sussex highways and they are all the same issue which again to this date nothing has been done. No one has even come out to look regarding the latest report so adding further vehicles to an already damaged road makes no sense!

To my understanding and after talking to other locals including parish council members the roads in The Maltings in particular were supposed to be resurfaced completely when they built the newer houses and elderly residential homes. This was never carried out although money was set aside to carry these works out by the council and in breach of planning?? This brings down the area and makes driving frustrating avoiding potholes daily.

Within the area of The Maltings lighting is on constantly throughout the night which is for one light pollution and secondly proves a hindrance when trying to get to sleep at night. Adding further houses at PE5 runs the risk of further light pollution and disruption.

Peasmarsh has no doctor's surgery. As residents of peasmarsh we have to travel to rye for our nearest surgery. Northiam surgery we were told that we are out of their catchment but either way this presents an issue of how people are to get to and from the doctors due to insufficient travel infrastructure. Bus services are not frequent and I have recently found out that the bus service from Northiam to Rye which would go through peasmarsh is due to have a reduced service. Adding houses to all the development sites in peasmarsh would cause a negative impact on travel.
Qu. 5 Question about the aesthetic of the houses at PE5 and whether they will be in keeping with the surrounding area. There currently are no flats like the proposed in the immediate vicinity which would be unsightly and out of character to the rest of the surrounding area.

PE5 would directly over look my garden and my neighbours gardens, This is an invasion to my privacy as we are already overlooked by the houses situated at the front of our house that are newly built within the past 6 years or so. We can't have our front curtains in the lounge or bedroom open as a result of this due to privacy so adding further houses at PE5 would be an invasion of privacy. This also has an impact on how much natural light can enter our home which will affect anyone's Mental Wellbeing!

Recent knowledge found out by talking with parish council members is that the council recently sold off council owned homes in the maltings area due to no interest to develop or refurbish, yet new houses are being proposed at PE5 and PE4 when these houses that have now been sold could have been updated !?

Public transport is irregular and timetables a not easily workable to a daily routine for people who work but don't drive, new houses could present an issue for people getting to and from jobs, especially the younger generation who aren't driving due to age restrictions but want to work and have to travel. New houses and more people need more frequent and better public transport. If people cannot get access to better public transport then they may have to resort to using independent taxi services which cost a small fortune and become un economical due to the cost of living and inflation in reflection to how much different age groups can earn. This could have a massive impact on a person's Mental Wellbeing if they are being denied the simple right of travel to earn money which in this day and age you have to travel. Not everyone can work from home.

Qu. 6 School infrastructure - peasmarsh primary school is only small and has a limited number of places due to size and safe capacity. Adding an additional 143 new homes to the village is going to impact the school in good and bad ways. If the school cannot take children due to higher volumes what happens to the children that get refused?
Going to alternative schools in adjacent villages may not be an option if travel is a concern and how will the schools funding be affected regarding SENCO and support teachers. These factors need to be thought about and appropriate action needs to be addressed.

Access to the school is via a narrow road and increasing the volume of houses would in turn increase the volume of pedestrian traffic vehicular traffic.

Pedestrian Crossings on the main street would need to be updated to zebra crossings to give right of way to pedestrians and traffic calming solutions would need to be implemented as speeding is a big concern in the village. We have had a friend that got clipped by a car while using the crossing - thankfully she sustained no injuries as it
was her bag that got struck. Adding 143 new homes will increase foot traffic and cause danger to life if these matters are not addressed and updated. The existing crossing is not safe as vehicles do not slow down as they now should according to the highway code that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross the road they have right
of way.

Qu.13 The amount of housing in proportion to the size of the village is completely out of context. Upon looking at all the suggested sites from PEI to PE5 the size of the development as a whole is almost doubling the size of the village and I must stress we are a village. Not a town and have no wish to become a town. Village life is part
of peasmarsh's history and cramming more and more houses into an already over stretched village is wrong. The volume of new houses in comparison to the size of the existing houses in the village is again wrong although I do not disagree with some development taking place. I must stress this amount is unfair and will cause years of
disruption to all who live in the village and problems which will in turn cost more money to rectify regarding infrastructure issues etc.

Qu.47 Regarding PEI, my concerns here are that the new junction that is to be created will be on a brow of a hill and this could potentially cause an accident hotspot. Further to an earlier response speeding in the village is a big issue so traffic calming measures need to be applied here to prevent danger to life by careless drivers!! Further to PE1 the drainage toward Jempsons has recently flooded where the drains were blocked causing the road to be impassable.

PE5 suggested the site has a boundary zone which is within 15 meters of the ancient woodland and as the government website states. This is to protect the root system of trees, soil and animal habitats. The woodland is home to numerous wildlife and building at PE5 would be extremely detrimental to the surrounding woodland and wildlife. Animals will be displaced no matter how good a measures are applied and whichever way you look at it all of this needs protecting. Even the trees and grass area are a significant lift to mental well being for people in the area and adding more building and concrete will do no good.

If PE5 is developed and trees are removed this will 100% have an impact on surface water/flooding as trees take in vast volumes of water through their root systems. Removing trees and green space will cause water displacement which will cause further flooding and surface water issues. Removing the green space will also mean that the parish council supplied grit bin would be potentially misplaced causing an issue for residents wanting to travel toward the main street in peasmarsh safely in icy or snowy conditions. This could cause potential injuries if something so basic is taken away from the community.

Developing PE5 will put local businesses out of work and this will displace them and finding other suitable units to rent local and relevant to them will become a challenge, Businesses there are made up of local connections and you can just up sticks and move a business without complications so the is not fair on the businesses that run out of The Maltings Business Park. I have concerns that developing PE5 will de-value my property which will impact me and my neighbours negatively. Homes are places we live but are also investments for our families futures. New houses are no way "affordable" these days without a catch like part ownership and what hasn't been stated is whether the development at PE5 is for freehold and to be sold to new first time buyers or housing associations.

The Car park at PE5 site is in constant use daily and taking this from the communities is wrong! It is used by the villages and by people from surrounding villages for the entertainment for their children using the play ground. The recreation ground is part of the village life with regular football matches and used daily throughout the year in all weathers, taking what off-road parking is there away from the people and community is not the right decision! Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a suitable option!

67 Overall I strongly object to PE5 and think this is not a
suitable option!

1
The Strategic Spatial Objectives appear positive at first glance, but on closer inspection there are clear inconsistencies.

For instance, the aim to protect the natural environment and historic landscape is difficult to reconcile with the allocation of four out of five sites in Peasmarsh on greenfield land (PE1–PE4), including development on elevated ground at PE3 which would dominate the village.

Similarly, the objective of delivering housing aligned with local incomes does not reflect economic reality. Local wages err towards minimum wage, meaning even dual-income households are unlikely to afford homes at current market prices. With average house prices in Peasmarsh exceeding £400,000, the proposed “affordable” housing is unlikely to be genuinely accessible to younger residents.

The plan also promotes public transport, yet fails to acknowledge how limited, unreliable, and costly local services are in practice.

In addition, reference is made to neighbourhood planning, but the Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan appears to have been largely overlooked.

Overall, while the objectives are well intentioned, there is a clear gap between what is promised and what is realistically deliverable. The frequent use of the term “sustainable” is not supported by the proposals that follow.


2
The housing targets do not appear to take account of the number of properties that are currently unused, including second homes, holiday lets, and investment properties.

There is little indication of how such housing stock might be brought back into use through policy or incentives. As a result, the emphasis seems to be on increasing supply through new development rather than making better use of existing homes.

5
(a) Transport and Movement

Public transport provision is extremely limited. Bus services are infrequent, often delayed, and poorly coordinated with onward connections. This makes travel by public transport impractical in many cases.

For example, journeys to key destinations such as The Conquest Hospital in Hastings can take several hours by bus, and costs are relatively high compared to local incomes.

Road conditions are also poor, with potholes and seasonal flooding creating hazards for drivers and cyclists. Pedestrian infrastructure is inconsistent, with uneven pavements and a lack of safe crossing points.

In practice, the current transport network encourages reliance on private cars, which runs counter to the plan’s sustainability objectives.

(b) Community and Cultural Facilities

Peasmarsh benefits from several valued community assets, including the Memorial Hall and recreation facilities. However, these are largely maintained through local initiative rather than district-level support.

This highlights the importance of local knowledge and community-led provision, which does not appear to be fully reflected in the plan.

(c) Education

Local secondary education options are limited. Rye College has faced challenges in recent years and lacks a sixth form, which affects its attractiveness to families.

While alternative schools exist, accessing them can be difficult due to transport constraints.

(d) Health and Social Care

There is no GP surgery within the village, and nearby practices have limited capacity. Access to healthcare therefore depends heavily on travel, which is both costly and time-consuming without a car.

(e) Flooding

Flooding is a significant issue in Peasmarsh, despite suggestions in the plan that it is not.

Surface water flooding and a high water table are well-known local concerns. The assessment appears to rely on incomplete or inappropriate data, potentially overlooking these risks.

(f) Utilities and Energy

There have been repeated failures in water and electricity supply in recent years, sometimes lasting for extended periods.

Wastewater and sewage infrastructure are also problematic, with frequent discharges into the River Rother.

Power outages have wider consequences, affecting communications, heating, and access to essential services. These issues raise serious questions about the resilience of existing infrastructure.

(g) Emergency and Security Services

Infrastructure failures can directly impact the ability to contact emergency services.

Flooding incidents already require intervention from the fire service, and rural crime remains a concern. Overall, emergency resilience is closely tied to the weaknesses identified in other infrastructure systems.

Summary

Across all areas, infrastructure appears under strain. Without significant investment and a coordinated strategy, additional development is likely to increase pressure on already limited resources.


6
The policy relating to strategic gaps appears internally inconsistent.

On the one hand, it emphasises the importance of maintaining separation between settlements. On the other, it allows for development within these gaps where sites are deemed suitable.

This creates uncertainty and suggests that boundaries could be adjusted to accommodate development, undermining the original purpose of the policy.


8
The scale of proposed development in Peasmarsh (143 houses) represents a substantial increase relative to the existing housing stock.

Describing this level of growth as “small scale” does not align with the reality of a roughly 25% expansion. This appears inconsistent with the aim of delivering sensitive development in rural areas.

13
The classification of Peasmarsh as a sustainable location is questionable.

Many key services (Shop, Post Office, Pharmacy, Petrol Station and ATM) are effectively provided by a single business (Jempson’s), which introduces considerable vulnerability. Should this provision change, bearing in mind bricks and mortar retail exists in an increasingly hostile environment, the village’s service base would be immediately wiped out.

This reliance does not represent a robust or resilient foundation for long-term planning.


15
The plan states that development should support local needs and maintain rural character.

However, the scale and nature of the proposed developments, particularly on greenfield land, would alter the character of the village.

There is also a risk that affordable housing commitments may not be delivered in practice, as viability considerations often lead to such elements being reduced or removed.


47
PE1 (Kitewood)

Development of this site would result in the loss of greenfield land and contribute to the gradual erosion of the rural setting of the village.

There are likely to be impacts on local road networks, including increased traffic movements and potential safety concerns at access points. Drainage and flood risk also require careful consideration, given existing local conditions.

PE2 (Pippins)

This site raises particular concerns regarding the delivery of affordable housing. Previous applications have suggested that such provision may not be viable, which calls into question whether policy objectives can be met in practice.

As with other sites, development would introduce additional traffic and infrastructure demands, while also affecting the character of the surrounding area.

PE3 (Tanyard Field)

This site is especially sensitive due to its elevated and visually prominent position. Development here would have a significant impact on the wider landscape and views into and out of the village.

There is also a history of planning resistance on this site, reflecting longstanding local concerns. Flood risk and drainage issues further complicate its suitability.

In addition, there is concern that development here would lead to further expansion beyond the currently proposed boundaries. The initial proposal of 15 affordable homes is a Trojan Horse to blight a greenfield site, make it a brownfield site and then build a second wave of development which (if consistent with previous proposals and planning applications) could be as much as 60 to 70 more houses.

PE4 (Orchard Way)

Similar to other allocations, development on this site would involve greenfield land and raise questions about environmental impact and infrastructure capacity.

Access arrangements, traffic generation, and drainage all require further scrutiny, particularly in light of existing constraints.

PE5 (Malthouse Business Park)

Although this site may differ in character from the others, development would still contribute to cumulative impacts across the village.

Consideration should be given to how it integrates with existing settlement patterns, as well as its implications for local services and infrastructure.

Overall Site Assessment.

When considered individually, each site presents a range of challenges. Taken together, their cumulative impact is likely to be significant.

This includes increased traffic, pressure on infrastructure, loss of rural character, and potential environmental effects.

There is also limited assurance that new housing will meet local needs, rather than contributing to second home ownership or external demand.

A more comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts and deliverability would strengthen the plan.


67
The removal of Policy SDO9 could enable rapid expansion in smaller settlements.

In the case of Peasmarsh, this could result in a significant increase in housing without corresponding improvements in infrastructure.

68
The Sustainability Appraisal appears to underestimate key issues, particularly flooding.

This raises concerns about the accuracy of the evidence base and whether local conditions have been properly understood (fluvial vs pluvial flooding).


69
The consultation process does not appear to have been fully inclusive.

The reliance on online materials may have excluded some residents, particularly those less comfortable with digital platforms. Limited outreach and a relatively short consultation period may also have reduced participation.

There is a risk that not all sections of the community have been adequately represented as a result.

While the plan sets out clear ambitions, there are significant concerns about how these will be achieved in practice.

In particular, there appears to be a disconnect between proposed development and the capacity of local infrastructure, as well as uncertainty over whether housing delivery will meet local needs.

Our property, on the corner of Main St. and Orchard Way, is a grade 2 listed ex-farmhouse with shallow foundations. Orchard Way is very narrow and all traffic must pass within a meter of the side of the house. The heavy traffic necessary for developing PE4 brings considerable risks to our property. Additionally, as a listed building of historical importance, the developments proposed at PE4 and PE3, within direct view, impact negatively on the property's setting and character.

Access – there is a right stipulated in the deeds to park and land/unload in Orchard Way. This will became impractical and unexercisable with the increased traffic from 7 new dwellings, with the extra pressure on available parking space and the fact there is not room for two cars to pass each other.

Inadequate infrastructure - there are already frequent power cuts. Within the past two years there have been loud and obnoxious generators on Main Street as a 'temporary fix' that made it difficult to sleep. More houses means increased likelihood of disruption.

Flooding risk - this building has flooded the past. The development at PE3 lies directly up hill and the run off from heavy rains will not be absorbed to the ground as effectively, increasing risk of flash flooding. A problem that is exacerbated by climate change and increasing weather extremes.

Peasmarsh - Developments PE1 through PE5 will harm the village's cham charm and there is already insufficient provision of amenities. For example doctors/dentists etc. in Rye are already at full capacity.

Infrastructure – Waste:
Existing properties at Orchard Way are not on mains sewerage. They rely on a privately maintained treatment plant. The annual service and emptying already creates an unavoidable obstruction at the bottom of the drive, right where the entrance to the proposed small Orchard Way development would be accessed. Costs for this are rising each year; this year it will be going up by 6% (as per email from RSR Drainage). Any new houses here will also need private waste treatment plants.
Infrastructure – Electricity
The electric supply already suffers from regular power cuts in this area. More houses will inevitably make the situation worse. There is no gas in this location at Orchard Way.
Driveway and Access to Orchard Way
The entrance to Orchard Way is narrow and there is no way for two cars to pass each other. We regularly have to back into our parking spaces to allow each other in.
Our title deeds specifically identify a parking area and state that we should not change the front garden of our property. That means other cars drive between our cars and our house. Increased traffic on the driveway poses an increased risk to us, our child, and any guests while walking from the car to the house. There is no passing bay to allow cars to pass each other as they enter or leave the driveway onto the main street.
Visibility is poor when coming into the driveway from the road. We regularly meet neighbours or delivery vehicles head on and have to reverse onto the road.
Surface Water and Flooding
Orchard Way goes downhill from the main road and during times of prolonged rainfall there is considerable flooding right at the point of access to the proposed small development site at Orchard Way.
Biopsychosocial – Impact
When we bought our house, the choice was made in part due to its position away from heavy traffic, with a small group of houses sharing the access. With a possible six or seven more houses at the end of this small drive, with an average of two cars per house, we are looking at around fourteen extra cars passing our door each day. That is not the property we chose.
Additional cars, delivery vehicles, and people at Orchard Way will drastically change the character of the existing properties on Orchard Way in a negative way, affecting both the value of our house and our personal enjoyment of our property.
Locality – Peasmarsh
Peasmarsh is a lineal village with only one shop at one end. We understand the need for development and, having seen the 2025–2042 Development Strategy, we understand that appropriate locations are hard to find. However, Peasmarsh would not have the amenities necessary for all the proposed 143 houses. There is no doctor’s surgery or dentist, and facilities in Rye are already at capacity and turning people away.

Dear Sir,

Please accept these comments/criticisms in regards to your proposals under sec 47 regarding site allocations for Peasmarsh Policies PE1 and PE5

It is astonishing that Rother District Council (RDC) can countenance the complete destruction of one of the few remaining places with genuine rural amenity with little or no apparent attempt to consult meaningfully with those most affected. If RDC wish to preserve even the verisimilitude of professional competence and even handedness they will address the following criticisms and observations

1 Much of the land now proposed for development at Peasmarsh has twice been considered for development and on both occasions declared to be unsuitable. The major grounds for these refusals still obtain.

2 It is alleged that development permission followed the involvement of a planning officer of RDC owning part of the land (Pippins to be destroyed to achieve access). This is an issue that, if correct, may require judicial review.

3. Consultation is limited to statutory minimum. Does RDC not recognise that so major a development deserves a leaflet to each household explaining in simple clear language the proposal. This would cost £1,000 whereas RDC take a monthly estimate of £200,000 from Peasmarsh. Do RDC consider they have met their obligation for informed consultation by a box ticking exercise where few people know what is happening? And do RDC not recognise that many people have no computer or internet access?

4. Application for more or better particulars if made by electronic means have been met with 'No matches'. Personal application met by unacceptable delays.

5. Such supporting data used by RDC is hidden behind jargon and frequently incorrect. For example, Drainage a major consideration on this ill-drained site, is described as 'neutral or minor negative'. How much sewage floating down the road is required to reflect the term 'a major negative' How many houses need to flood??

6. Infrastructure of every kind has not been satisfactorily addressed

7. No mention is made that previous objections had attracted unanimous and well-founded support.

8. Do RDC not recognise their responsibility to protect the environment of the Council Tax payers who pay their salaries as well as their need to find suitable sites?

9. Why have RDC previously (and now?) overlooked, or failed to develop the 30+ acres near Ore (a disused former dairy farm) which meets most of their declared criteria whereas the proposed development at Peasmarsh fails in almost every way?

Dear Planning Strategy team.
RE: Kitewood Estates Limited Response to Rother Local Plan 2025- 2042 Regulation 18: Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Kitewood Estates Limited (‘Kitewood’) welcome the opportunity to comment on the Regulation 18 Local Plan: Development Strategy and Site Allocations.
We understand that this consultation follows the first Regulation 18 consultation that was carried out in summer 2024. However, this is the first time that the proposed site allocations have been published for consultation.
As currently drafted, the Plan only seeks to meet 54% of its objectively assessed need, by planning to deliver just 495 per annum against an annual requirement of 912. This represents a significant shortfall. This shortfall is even more significant in the context of neighbouring authorities such as Lewes District, which is also only planning to meet only 54% of its housing requirement. There is therefore not only a local but a cumulative significant shortfall in the provision of housing across the wider housing market area.
In the absence of any clear or compelling evidence to demonstrate why the Council’s housing requirement cannot be met in full, it is likely that the Plan will fail to comply with the legal requirements1 in failing to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF (paras 61 & 62) in respect of housing delivery and being Positively Prepared. There is also nothing to suggest in the current consultation NPPF, that this position will change, with Local Plans still expected to be based on meeting “as a minimum” the areas identified housing need based on the Standard Method.
1 As set out in the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2024 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2012
7 Dacre Street, London, SW1H
0DJ t 020 7929 5911
WWW.KITEWOOD.CO.UK
Kitewood Estates Ltd. Registered Office: 7 Dacre Street, London, SW1H 0DJ Registered in England No: 02852063 Vat Reg No: 725
4830 33
Current proposed allocations must therefore be retained and additional sites identified to meet the housing need in full or compelling evidence must be prepared which demonstrates why the full housing need cannot be met. This must include testing meeting the full need in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal, which does not even include this as an option, noting all options tested fall significantly below the identified housing need.
Furthermore, there appear to be significant gaps in the evidence base at present and it is therefore difficult to comment on the proposed Plan as a whole. However, we understand that the Regulation 19 Local Plan is expected to be published for consultation in summer 2026 and we trust that relevant the evidence base documents will be available at that time, which also reflects the guidance in the consultation NPPF, which directs Plan makers “not to prepare new or additional evidence after a Plan has been submitted for examination” (Policy PM8)
At this time our comments are limited to proposed site allocation PE1: Land South of Main Street, Peasmarsh.
PE1: Land South of Main Street, Peasmarsh.
Kitewood is a privately owned development company, and we part own and part control the land located to the south of Main Street, Peasmarsh (including the dwellinghouse to be demolition to facilitate access) that is proposed for allocation under policy PE1: Land South of Main Street, Peasmarsh. A full planning application (ref: RR/2025/1499/P) was submitted in August 2025 and it is currently being determined comprising the following proposed development: Demolition of The Garden House and the erection of 70 dwellings with access taken off Main Street, together with the provision of parking, landscaping, open space and associated infrastructure
The application is supported by a full suite of technical reports which demonstrate that 70 homes can be comfortably accommodated on the Site.
Kitewood first submitted the site to the Council to be assessed as part of the HELAA process and has undertaken extensive pre-application engagement with Officers prior to the application being submitted. We therefore fully support the proposed site allocation PE1: Land South of Main Street, Peasmarsh for approximately 70 dwellings and confirm that the site is deliverable in the early years of the emerging Local Plan.
Whilst we fully support that proposed site allocation, we have the following detailed comments on the ‘Density Statistics’ table and the proposed ‘Policy Text’ that is being consulted on. The proposed changes and additions are shown in bold and underlined below.
The application site measures 3.1 ha rather than 3.2 ha currently suggested at the site size in the ‘Density Statistics’ table. There is also an inconsistency shown on the ‘Online Policy
7 Dacre Street, London, SW1H
0DJ t 020 7929 5911
WWW.KITEWOOD.CO.UK
Kitewood Estates Ltd. Registered Office: 7 Dacre Street, London, SW1H 0DJ Registered in England No: 02852063 Vat Reg No: 725
4830 33
Map’ that suggests the site size is 3.08ha. The mapping and text should therefore be revised to ensure consistency.
Development on this site should (rather than ‘must’) to provide flexibility:
1.
Provide a policy-compliant amount of on-site affordable housing in line with policy HOU2 of the Rother Local Plan
2.
Provide vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Main Street (which is likely to require demolition of a dwelling), to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority;
3.
Include reasonable and proportionate improvements to off-site highway infrastructure (and necessary financial contributions), including: a new pedestrian crossing on Main Street, a new bus stop on the westbound side of Main Street, improvements to the existing eastbound bus stop, and financial contributions towards bus services, all in accordance with the requirements of the Highway Authority;
4.
Include new pedestrian links to Jempsons and south-eastwards towards School Lane integrating (and diverting as necessary) the existing public right of way and including any necessary improvements, to the satisfaction of the Rights of Way Officer; Proposed deletion of point 4) as Jempsons is accessible via Main Street and it’s not clear why a link to School Lane would be necessary.
5.
Where feasible provide for new pedestrian and cycle links to the adjoining allocated site to the south-east (“Land at Pippins, Main Street”);
6.
Where feasible, retain and enhance the existing hedgerows/ trees on the boundaries of the site and within the site, and include an additional landscaped buffer area of Green Infrastructure in the southern part of the site and along the south-western boundary, which could also include sustainable drainage, public open space and new tree planting to screen the site in views from the south-west and protect and enhance the adjoining area of Priority Habitat (traditional orchard) to the south-east;
7.
Include an assessment and evaluation of the site’s archaeological potential and the implementation of any mitigation measures identified through the assessment. Proposed deletion of point 7) as this requirement could be secured by the validation requirements.
Kitewood agree that the site is sustainably located on the edge of the village and it is enclosed from views from the wider countryside. Whilst it falls within the National Landscape designation, there is the opportunity to incorporate a landscape buffer and seek to retain and enhance the historic field boundaries.
We look forward to the publication of the Regulation 19 Local Plan for consultation in summer 2026 and to continued engagement with Officers in relation to the proposed site allocation PE1: Land South of Main Street, Peasmarsh.

My comments and objections on the Rother Local Plan Strategic Objectives are as follows:

I would like to comment in detail on question 1 as I believe that Rother are fundamentally failing to follow the guidelines of the current draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in respect of how they relate to the village of Peasmarsh. As such, I believe the draft proposals for Peasmarsh are not valid or acceptable and must be reconsidered with reference to the most recent NPPF.

I would request a written response to the points and issues raised in my reply to Question 1 below

Other comments in my reply to Question 1 below

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be used. It questions only is the primary document for all overall planning policy within England.

My grounds for objection are based on the statements with the NPPF we this paper itself.

Firstly, the entirety of the village of Peasmarsh was within the High Weald Area of Natural Beauty (AONB), and it is now a part of a Protected Landscape within the High Weald National Landscape.

Because of this, NPPF on p89 states that planning staff, when creating Plan Making Policies in this area should follow this guidance below :

N1: Identifying environmental opportunities and safeguards

c) Steer the location of development, including through site allocations, in ways which utilise land of least environmental value where that would be consistent with other policies in this Framework. This should include limiting the scale and extent of development within protected landscapes, avoiding the use of higher quality agricultural land where land of poorer quality is available and avoiding and minimising harm to designated sites of
importance for nature.. (my italics).

This is clearly not being upheld in the case in respect of Tanyard field which supports a thriving and diverse wildlife community, including being used by badgers, hedgehogs, frogs, toads, lizards, newts, bats, numerous birds and many other species of plants, animals and invertebrates.

The NPPF continues P89:

N4: Protected Landscapes 1) Development proposals within Protected Landscapes should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to their statutory purposes and special qualities. Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks and the Broads. (my italics)

How it be claimed that development within the Peasmarsh Protected Landscape is limited in scale and extent when as the 6th most populous village in the Rye and Eastern Settlement Cluster, we have the 2nd largest increase in housing being proposed! This is not limited development in scale and extent. It will cause great damage to the wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, as described above and will change (and is intended to change) Peasmarsh from being a rural village, (which as the local Neighbourhood Development plan showed, is willing to accommodate reasonable small scale building), into a suburb of Rye. Even though its inhabitants will still have to increase pollution and traffic when going into Rye as no changes to the inadequate bus services are planned (or budgeted for!).

The NPPF continues P89:

2) Proposals for major development within protected landscapes should only be supported in exceptional circumstances (70) where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. To inform a decision about whether exceptional circumstances exist, consideration of such proposals should include an assessment of:

a) The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations.
b) The cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for the development in some other way; and
c) Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which it could be moderated. (my italics)

I do not believe any such exceptional circumstances exist in the case of Peasmarsh.

a) It would be nonsense to claim any national considerations apply to our small rural village
b) The cost of building in Peasmarsh is the same as elsewhere in East Sussex. Other land has been found in many other areas which are not within the boundaries of the protected landscape. And the village has a recent Neighbourhood plan where it has accepted limited growth. But it does not wish to be turned into a suburb of Rye and should not be turned into one, simply because it is more convenient for planners to see it this way.
c) There would be a clear detrimental effect on the life of Peasmarsh as a rural village with the High Weald National Landscape under the current proposals. Once expanded and made into an extension of Rye, its environment, landscape and recreational opportunities will no longer exist in the traditional form which its current inhabitants were born, or came into, and which the National Landscape seeks to preserve. Any moderation should be to ensure that any major development should only take place outside the National Landscape environment.

The NPPF continues p89:

3) Where, exceptionally, proposals for major development are approved within protected landscapes, steps should be taken to mitigate potential adverse impacts on their special qualities and statutory purposes (71), including on features such as tranquillity and dark skies. (my italics)

There are no grounds for major development within our protected landscape as outlined above. The proposed changes would lead to at least a 50% increase in the size of the village. It would inevitably be a substantial intrusion on the tranquillity and starlit skies that are such a feature of village life at present. In other words, the character of the village within the National Landscape would no longer be in place.

The NPPF continues p89:

4) Development proposals within the setting of protected landscapes should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas. (my italics)

Substantial adverse impacts will occur if the planned developments take place. I believe you will be informed in the consultation by many of the inhabitants that the clue is in the name - Peasmarsh. The large- scale sites that Rother are proposing are on sites that already have a substantial and well documented ground water problem.

Surface water flooding is endemic in many areas of the village, including runoff from Tanyard Field. The old houses have combined surface water and sewage drains, the surface runoff in the winter occasionally ices over and causes problems for traffic and risk for pedestrians. The sewage is frequently released into the local rivers,
and the proposed developments will only create further difficulties. We have power and internet outages. Any developers chosen will seek to avoid responsibility by pushing problems back to Rother Council, who will then have to the numerous complaints about the utility companies such as Southern Water whose woeful record is already well known.

I also want to comment on the Footnotes for p89 in the NPPF

(70) For the purpose of this policy and policy N5 only, whether a proposal is 'major development' is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the statutory purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.

(71) Where significant harm cannot be mitigated, it may be appropriate to consider whether suitable compensation would be acceptable. (my italics)

I believe that the developments proposed can only be described as major developments which would transform the nature of the village and are not compatible with the requirement to treat the village as being within a National Landscape, as made clear in the NPPF. The significant adverse impacts are discussed above, and will also be found in the other responses to the consultation that are being sent from the village.

It is also unclear how the decision maker in Rother planning has determined whether the proposals are major developments. Could it be made clear on what basis has the decision maker determined that Peasmarsh is to be a major development and why this has been allowed to override the standard definition in NPPF Glossary (Annex B) p112 (below.)

The lack of information and the way in which sites were surveyed (for example the fields chosen, have never been surveyed fully, and have generally been viewed distantly from the road at best. This suggests to me that the planning decisions have been driven by the location on a map and the availability of developer sites, rather than an analysis of the effects on a Protected Landscape, which is required by the NPPF

Finally for clarity, I attach the following information in NPPF Glossary (Annex B) p112

Protected landscapes: Refers to National Parks, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and National Landscapes in England.

Designated rural areas: National Parks, National Landscapes, areas designated as rural under Section 157 of the Housing Act1985, and other areas with a population of 3,000 or less and a population density of two persons or less per hectare. National Landscapes: Areas legally designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Major development: For housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. For non-residential development it means additional floorspace of 1,000m2 or more, or a site of 1 hectare or more, or as otherwise provided in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Note that this definition of Major Development is amended as above for section N4 and N5 of the NPPF. I have therefore only commented on the definition i.r.o. footnote 70 (above).

5

Regarding Infrastructure needs, my comments relate solely to Utility 5 and Energy - with specific reference to the Peasmarsh area - which are the fundamental pre-requisites for any acceptable development. The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) - accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum - highlighted in great detail the deficiencies of these services in Peasmarsh. The sewer system is grossly inadequate - the combined drain arrangement, combining storm water with sewage, taken together with the wet conditions, ensures not only flooding but the eruption into the road of raw sewage in particularly wet times. This is confirmed by many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP. The Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its' capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary. Both Power and Water Supply are clearly inadequate for the existing housing stock, without regard for any increases. In recent times alone, there have been many instances of power or water failure - some of these problems lasting for several days. It is foolish and irresponsible to consider any further development of the village without addressing these issues first.

6

The Development Option SDO13 - A21 Corridor Growth seems 6 sensible and should indeed be pursued. SDO14 - filling strategic gaps - should proceed as well though and the reasons given for abandoning it do not chime with the
achievement of the development targets the plan defines. Many of these reasons are well-meant, but the effect is to force unreasonable development targets onto areas which are technically totally unsuitable.

13

The proposed vision and development strategy for the Eastern 13 Settlements Cluster seems totally wrong. It has all the hallmarks of a paper exercise - conducted from a desk and totally ignoring real life and the situation on the ground. Firstly, the allocation of new homes to Peasmarsh is totally out of proportion to the existing size of the village and its' capacity to absorb additional development. Secondly, the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village - despite the very clear geographical limitations of the Village. Expecting Peasmarsh to take 20% of the additional homes in this area is clearly unbalanced and seeks for some reason to turn Peasmarsh into a dormitory suburb of Rye. The much-touted "commercial centres" in Peasmarsh are all on one site, part of one enterprise, and routinely exposed to commercial realities.

47

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

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

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

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park.

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

67

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

Question 1: Looking at the first of the Strategic Spatial Objectives -the proposed Rother Plan does not fit with this objective "Mitigate and adapt to climate change, including by delivering net zero carbon ambitions, reducing flood risk from all sources and promoting the multifunctional benefits of green blue infrastructure through effective and supportive planning policies.

You emphasise this in several documents:

Climate and Nature Emergency Declarations - Rother District Council:
Climate and Nature Emergency Declarations 2019. The burning of fossil fuels and deforestation is causing an unprecedented increase in global temperatures" (One important comment is the coloured stripes methodology used to show temperature increases from 1850 onwards has no connection to actual temperatures - does each colour change mean degree or 1 degree - it is treating us like children and has no place in a Council document).
Further: "The Rother Environment Strategy 2020-2030 (Superseded by the Climate Strategy: 2030) Rother District Council has declared a Climate Emergency with the ambitious target of being carbon, and other noxious gas, neutral by 2030." This statement, in a Council document, does make one suspect that the writer is not fully cognisant of the topic being dealt with. Carbon is not a gas, carbon dioxide is, neither is it noxious - it is present at 0.04% in air (at 0.03% all plant life dies).

"The rights of trees, was carried on 15th September 2025 to strengthen the council's response to protecting wildlife. Council - Monday 15th September 2025 6.30 pm Agenda for Council on Monday 15th September 2025, 6.30 pm - Rother District Council:
B) This Council supports the introduction into law of legislation which would require those taking decisions affecting trees to have regard to the trees' rights to: 6. not to be killed"
Yet examining the sites shows many places where trees will be cut down, trees capture carbon, as does grass - yet you are planning on reducing their numbers and the area of green land!

"Environmental Management Background Paper: P24 East Sussex Environment Strategy 2020
2.56 And finally, looking at water, "the long term aim of this Strategy is for East Sussex to achieve a resilient and sustainable water supply for consumers and the environment."
However in Peasmarsh our water supply is already not resilient - the system has broken down, sometimes due to flooding, having to provide plastic bottles of water, as has been the case a couple of times in the past few years is not sustainable. Conversations with other Rother residents echo these problems.

The second Strategic Spatial Objective: "Maximise opportunities for nature conservation, recovery and biodiversity net gain and preserve the historic landscape character of the High Weald National Landscape and protected habitat areas of Rother and ensure sensitive development that allows communities to thrive."

Many of the proposed sites seem to be areas of greenery, fields that have existed since time immemorial with clumps of trees, Tanyard field in Peasmarsh being an example. The range of biodiversity is high with numerous birds and many other species of plants, animals and invertebrates.

The 4th Strategic Spatial Objective: "Respond to the housing crisis and help facilitate the delivery of housing to meet the needs of different groups in the community, ensuring a variety of high-quality sustainable, zero carbon ready dwellings that meet the needs and address the income levels of Rother's wider population for their lifetime"

"Economy Background Paper:

4.2 Rother's population is growing and ageing. Between 2008 and 2022, Rother's overall population increased by 4.48%. However, the number of residents in Rother aged 65 and over increased by over 22.9% in the same time period, while the number of Rother's 30-44 year old residents decreased by 9.4%. Trend-based population projections (2020-2040) find that the overall population will continue to increase, with the increase in residents aged over 75 particularly significant, but also that numbers in the younger age groups will decrease."

"Health and Wellbeing Background Paper P16 Figure 2 shows from the 2021 census Rother has 18% 0-19, 21% 20- 44, 28% 45-64, and 32% 65 and over (with 16% being 65-74, 11% being 75-84 and 5% being 85 and over)"

"Housing Background Paper: P32 Population and household change

4.2 Rother's birth rate (2002-2019) has been lower than the County, regional and national averages. Also in line with the older age profile, Rother's death rate (deaths per 1,000 population) is higher than the County, regional and national averages."

"4.3 The life expectancy of Rother residents is broadly in line with the county and regional averages"

"Housing Background Paper 4.10: 2021 figures show that Rother has a higher proportion of owner- occupied dwellings (72.7%) compared to the national average (61.3%)"

The demographics given show that no such crisis exists - in the short term it is rather about allocation, in the medium and long term it disappears completely. When The Maltings housing was built local people were told that they would be housed - yet not one local person was given a home. This is a source of great bitterness whenever you talk to local families. Instead councils from outside the area were able, due to greater financial resources, to take places available. Further these people then became a burden on local Social Services - as once living in the area their support falls on Rother Council.

Those of us who have families around the country know that the allocation of housing to non-locals due to changing priorities by both Governments and Councils is a source of great distress to those from the locality affected. Should housing be built, the local Peasmarsh homeless will again lose out.

However the age structure and ownership rates given also need to be examined. Rother has an exceptionally high number of old (and very old) people who are often home owners coupled with a lower than average birth rate. When these people pass on they leave their dwellings behind. These become available for local relatives to live in, sell to others or rent to people in the area.

Strategic Spatial Objective 8: " Enhance the sustainability and connectivity of local communities through sustainable transport measures, including to support active travel, and improved internet network coverage"

Here when Background papers are examined it becomes clear that those involved in drafting these documents are young fit adults probably living in towns, who have not sought out information from the older demographic or indeed locals.

So the buses are infrequent, stop early and do not connect with trains. Further other than pie in the sky ambitions, no real steps are taken e.g. allowing people to receive a bus pass at 60, putting on more frequent buses on market days eg. Buses going into Rye on Thursdays.

Instead we get statements that could help- if amended:

"6. Safer, healthier and more active travel | East Sussex County Council More active travel: This plan will improve connectivity to enable people to travel by walking, wheeling and cycling, making it a natural choice for short journeys to access key services, such as employment, education or GPs, in both urban and rural areas." A chronically ill person cannot cycle to a GPs appointment.

Strategic Spatial Objective 9: "Support and achieve safe, healthy, vibrant and mixed communities where the physical and mental health and well-being of residents is a high priority. Create high standards of inclusivity and accessibility to shared facilities for all the district's residents"

Those of us who have had to spend time worrying that our local area is going to be further changed utterly, that the already more crowded roads due to more people, much longer waiting times for GPs and the risk of flooding, power cuts etc, know that our mental health and well- being have been damaged already.

Strategic Spatial Objective 11: "Deliver sustainable development by making the optimal use of land, including by prioritising the use of brownfield land and ensuring all new development is designed and built to appropriate densities, having regard to local context and character."

Yet in many proposed developments it is not brownfield land - because agricultural land is worth less, greedy landowners who have large areas put it forward knowing that they will make a huge profit when sold on to developers.

We the custodians of this land have been gifted it by our ancestors and hold it in trust for our children. We do not want the rural area to recede and be lost for the generations to come.

Question 5: The Peasmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan (PNDP) - accepted by Rother DC in April 2024 after an Inspection and local Referendum - highlighted the deficiencies of the water and sewage utilities in Peasmarsh. The sewer system cannot cope already -it combines storm water with sewage, leading to not only flooding but raw sewage in the road when wet weather occurs. (See many photos in the Appendices to the PNDP). The Sewage Pumping Station is at the limit of its' capacity. Any additional building of any consequence will cause further deterioration in this problem and make life particularly unpleasant and insanitary. Both Power and Water Supply are already inadequate for the existing housing stock. Power cuts happened in December and February, this affects the Pumping system making the situation worse.

Question 13: "Rother District Council - Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 - Development Strategy and Site Allocations - 6.75. Peasmarsh: Compared to most villages of its scale, has a less defined village centre, which increases the distances between services and facilities, therefore limiting the walkability of the settlement.

This taken from your own discussion paper mitigates against many other of your own ambitions - health etc. Further in surveys approx. 80% of the shoppers to Jempsons do not come from the village - it is an upmarket shop and therefore people come from settlements around. Also as only one complex volatility in the retail sector over the past 6 years in particular means that all these facilities could be lost at any time

Table 23 in the same document shows that the absolute number of new homes allocated to Peasmarsh is in excess of that for any other village: "Housing dwelling nos Existing allocations and sites with planning permission): 52; Housing (dwellings nos) (Proposed new allocations): 91; Total housing (dwelling nos): 143". Peasmarsh will be turned into a dormitory suburb of Rye and lose its rural aspect and countryside views visible from many parts of the village if 20% of the additional homes are designated for this area. See answer q1 also.


Question 47: Peasmarsh generally: Peasmarsh has already seen development in recent years (Farley's Way and The Maltings) which meant that ponds have been filled in, culverts that used to be able to drain to these ponds have also been filled in which has already led to flooding increasing. How can it be claimed that development within the Peasmarsh Protected Landscape is limited in scale and extent when as the 6th most populous village in the Rye and Eastern Settlement Cluster, we have the 2nd largest increase in housing being proposed! The proposed changes would lead to at least a 50% increase in the size of the village

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for England, it is the primary document for all overall planning policy within England. The NPPF states P89: 2) Proposals for major development within protected landscapes should only be supported in exceptional circumstances (70). The demographics of the Rother area in general (see response to q1) show that no such exceptional circumstances exist.

"Infrastructure Background Paper: P13 East Sussex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2016-2026: The East Sussex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy provides the framework for the management of local flood risk in the county and focuses on the management of flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses."

Yet you seem to specifically exclude the damage that surface water has caused in the past. Peasmarsh - it's in the name - has been classed as a flood plain since the 80s. Older houses have wells because the water table is so high. The names of older properties often reflect this fact. Previous developments in Farley's Way, removing turf, meant that the bungalows next to The Horse and Cart Pub flooded.

"The NPPF P89: N4: Protected Landscapes 1) Development proposals within Protected Landscapes should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to their statutory purposes and special qualities. Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks and the Broads" Tanyard field supports a diverse wildlife community, being used by hedgehogs, frogs, toads, lizards, newts with bats at dusk and many bird species

Tanyard field: Over 30 years ago building on Tanyard was rejected by the Secretary of State -February 1990 under Reference RR/90/0021/P.

"Guide to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in East Sussex (2015) 2.57(p24): As the Lead Local Flood Authority, East Sussex County Council have provided guidance in June 2015 on the use of SuDS in the county. The guidance outlines that SuDS are needed due to, in part, the increasing impermeable surfaces being constructed restricting rain water from naturally soaking into the ground and therefore flowing into the sewerage network and overloading it."
You are proposing to build on a field that slopes in two directions which already causes flooding. All gardens adjoining Tanyard are like sponges - once houses are there this will increase hugely leading to more floods. Recently (Jan 26) an internet outage was directly caused by flooding. The field is full of Springs clearly noted on old maps. They remain there today. Photos are available of a waterspout rising from the middle of the field. Heavy rain runs off causing considerable problem and damage to the properties lining Main Street, which lie along the Northern boundary of the field. Development will only make this worse. This in turn overloads the main combined drain running down Main Street.
The field is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/High Weald National Landscape and any development would be clearly detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape. Its' undulating park-like appearance is visible from many locations round the village access to the site is inadequate and unsafe. There are two access points. At the western end, a narrow gateway, completely unsuitable for traffic, gives onto narrow School Lane at a particularly congested point near the school. Towards the Eastern end, the main access gives onto Main Street between two bends where the sight lines are insufficient given the nature, speed and volume of traffic on the main road.

Second PE5 Malthouse Business Park: Its' loss would clearly be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses in the village, who find this kind of facility essential. The people who live in the village have to have opportunities to work.

Reasons why we are against anymore Developments in Peasmarsh especially the Maltings.
1. Our Countryside is being eradicated we were once what they called a small village, but over the years more & more development have appeared, especially at the Maltings but it's never enough now plans have been forwarded for a block of high Rise 1/2 Bedroom flats, which would be a terrible eyesore for all of Peasmarsh.
2. The infrastructure does not support anymore housing. (Sewage already flows out of the Drains + in Residents Gardens : ( Health & Safety)
3. This proposed eyesore will affect everyone, our village is already over-populated, especially The Maltings please don't take what beauty is left of our Village and think that blocks of flats are appropriate to be built here.
4. Wildlife will be impacted yet again on all proposed sites in Peasmarsh especially as the proposed site at the Maltings, will literally back onto our Ancient Woodlands, which are protected if we care deeply about.
5. Parking is horrendous at present at the Maltings and this will be made worse by anymore building developments. As per our last statement.
6. The parking in the Maltings, isn't a fair set up, since the previous development. Some houses have allocated parking spaces, but refuse to park there, leaving the original residents unable to park near their properties, either out the front or out the back where several Residents have Garages. This plus more development will also make it even more difficult for any type of emergency service to access where they need to reach, at present they have to park on a public foot path, traffic can get congested, without more vehicles adding to this dire situation. Also when football matches take place, the parking situation is absolutely horrendous. Where are Mums Grandparent and carers meant to park when bringing children to the playpark and when they have their half term football activities which the children thoroughly enjoy, but again causing havoc with parking, no thought has been put into this proposal whatsoever
7. Our roads at the Maltings are absolutely awful, and this was made worse , when the last development was built, we were assured that this would be put right, part of our drive had to be redone due to the excessive use by the building Lorries, but, the Roads were not and we are left with severe pot holes, causing damage to our cars. The Roads would only be made worse, by additional Traffic from this horrendous proposal. It would roughly equate that If each flat had 2 cars per household at 35 1/2 flats, at this proposal site.
8. There is no capacity at Drs , Dentist or our local primary school. None of these can facilitate even more people. There are Residents that are still unable to get Registered for these Services, + predominantly cannot afford to pay privately.
9. Houses will have obstruction of Light/sun Light, due to the horrendous height of the proposal at the Maltings. Speaking on behalf of my husband and our 2 Adult children, we as homeowners have lost a lot of our light + privacy, due to the last development that sits to the front of our privately owned home. I myself was able to go to the top flats, which look right down onto our houses/ neighbours, and I could literally see right into my neighbours bedroom. This must be an intrusion of our privacy, but this was never taken into consideration again we also feel that this will significantly affect the value of our owned property building such an eyesore again. How would you all feel, not happy at all. I'm sure!
10. We are so angry and very passionate and protective to what is left of what was once a small VILLAGE, 35 Dwellings / 1/2 Bedroom flats this is out of taste and there has been no consideration for the Peamarsh Residents, be it Rented accommodation or privately own homes, everyone counts ; and it affects us all. Peasmarsh has always been our home, but if concrete blocks keep being put into the smallest of areas, we will all end up being so tightly compacted together, creating more Health concerns (Mental Health Issues) heightened when the building development occurs. Also we have written our concerns in this form , as you have made it your place to make it as difficult as you can in understanding how to reply to this proposal. We are not the only Residents who found this difficult, so writing numbered points of reference to the objection of the proposal of the site at Malthouse Park is what several Residents will be doing also to reply. OUR COUNTRYSIDE IS BEING ERADICATED YET IT'S NEVER ENOUGH We feel very passionate About saving What is LEFT- !!!

Q5: The sewage system cannot cope with the current level of housing at Peasmarsh without adding yet more !
So far this year there have been 27 dumps/283 hours by Southern Water pouring raw sewage into the River Rother. Southern Water have admitted that the pumping station is currently working at it’s limit in times of heavy rainfall.
. Any further development will only exacerbate the problems.
These problems were highlighted in the PNDP and accepted by RDC in April 2024. There should be NO further developments in Peasmarsh until the sewage infrastructure is vastly improved.
Very poor Local bus service ( 1 every 2 hours ), with poor connections for onward travel.
ESCC are withdrawing the 313 Evening weekdays and Sunday service due to lack of funding.
Poor road surface , when raining heavy flooding of roads due to blocked drains not only on main roads but surrounding lanes as well ( some have been blocked for years ). This leads to many potholes being formed throughout winter.
Q47: PE 3 TANYARD FIELD.
This site was scrutinised and investigated during the PNDP 2024 by not only the local residents group but also by the independent inspectorate and endorsed by the village referendum as being totally unsuitable for development. This decision was accepted by RDC in 2024. The whole site is riddled with natural springs which even now causes problems with surface water running off to the properties bordering the site.
Q47: PE 4 ORCHARD WAY
Flooding occurs when there is very heavy rain. A drainage ditch drains into the small pond on the site which then flows into a small drainage pipe. In times of heavy rain this cannot cope with draining the water away and flooding occurs.
The site is also abutted on one side by a row of very old Poplar trees and oaks. One would assume that these would have to be cut down to ensure the safety of any houses built nearby. This would be sacrilege as the trees form part of the landscape of our village and are inhabited and visited by many birds and animals.
There is only narrow limited access to site via privately owned road.
There is no mains drainage available on this site.
Q47: PE 5 Malthouse Business Park
Used by small local firms employing local people. Removal of these premises would be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses within the village which also give employment to local people. The car parking area is utilised by users of the playing field, the loss of which would create further parking issues in nearby streets.

Q5: The sewage system cannot cope with the current level of housing at Peasmarsh without adding yet more !
So far this year there have been 27 dumps/283 hours by Southern Water pouring raw sewage into the River Rother. Southern Water have admitted that the pumping station is currently working at it’s limit in times of heavy rainfall.
. Any further development will only exacerbate the problems.
These problems were highlighted in the PNDP and accepted by RDC in April 2024. There should be NO further developments in Peasmarsh until the sewage infrastructure is vastly improved.
Very poor Local bus service ( 1 every 2 hours ), with poor connections for onward travel.
ESCC are withdrawing the 313 Evening weekdays and Sunday service due to lack of funding.
Poor road surface , when raining heavy flooding of roads due to blocked drains not only on main roads but surrounding lanes as well ( some have been blocked for years ). This leads to many potholes being formed throughout winter.
Q47: PE 3 TANYARD FIELD.
This site was scrutinised and investigated during the PNDP 2024 by not only the local residents group but also by the independent inspectorate and endorsed by the village referendum as being totally unsuitable for development. This decision was accepted by RDC in 2024. The whole site is riddled with natural springs which even now causes problems with surface water running off to the properties bordering the site.
Q47: PE 4 ORCHARD WAY
Flooding occurs when there is very heavy rain. A drainage ditch drains into the small pond on the site which then flows into a small drainage pipe. In times of heavy rain this cannot cope with draining the water away and flooding occurs.
The site is also abutted on one side by a row of very old Poplar trees and oaks. One would assume that these would have to be cut down to ensure the safety of any houses built nearby. This would be sacrilege as the trees form part of the landscape of our village and are inhabited and visited by many birds and animals.
There is only narrow limited access to site via privately owned road.
There is no mains drainage available on this site.
Q47: PE 5 Malthouse Business Park
Used by small local firms employing local people. Removal of these premises would be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses within the village which also give employment to local people. The car parking area is utilised by users of the playing field, the loss of which would create further parking issues in nearby streets.

Q5: The sewage system cannot cope with the current level of housing at Peasmarsh without adding yet more !
So far this year there have been 27 dumps/283 hours by Southern Water pouring raw sewage into the River Rother. Southern Water have admitted that the pumping station is currently working at it’s limit in times of heavy rainfall.
. Any further development will only exacerbate the problems.
These problems were highlighted in the PNDP and accepted by RDC in April 2024. There should be NO further developments in Peasmarsh until the sewage infrastructure is vastly improved.
Very poor Local bus service ( 1 every 2 hours ), with poor connections for onward travel.
ESCC are withdrawing the 313 Evening weekdays and Sunday service due to lack of funding.
Poor road surface , when raining heavy flooding of roads due to blocked drains not only on main roads but surrounding lanes as well ( some have been blocked for years ). This leads to many potholes being formed throughout winter.
Q47: PE 3 TANYARD FIELD.
This site was scrutinised and investigated during the PNDP 2024 by not only the local residents group but also by the independent inspectorate and endorsed by the village referendum as being totally unsuitable for development. This decision was accepted by RDC in 2024. The whole site is riddled with natural springs which even now causes problems with surface water running off to the properties bordering the site.
Q47: PE 4 ORCHARD WAY
Flooding occurs when there is very heavy rain. A drainage ditch drains into the small pond on the site which then flows into a small drainage pipe. In times of heavy rain this cannot cope with draining the water away and flooding occurs.
The site is also abutted on one side by a row of very old Poplar trees and oaks. One would assume that these would have to be cut down to ensure the safety of any houses built nearby. This would be sacrilege as the trees form part of the landscape of our village and are inhabited and visited by many birds and animals.
There is only narrow limited access to site via privately owned road.
There is no mains drainage available on this site.
Q47: PE 5 Malthouse Business Park
Used by small local firms employing local people. Removal of these premises would be detrimental to the establishment of small businesses within the village which also give employment to local people. The car parking area is utilised by users of the playing field, the loss of which would create further parking issues in nearby streets.