I write to object to Policy BWC2, which proposes the allocation of land at Old Orchard Nursery, Heathfield Road, Burwash Common, for residential development of approximately 9 dwellings.

This objection is made on behalf of the occupiers of an adjacent neighbouring property.

My objection is not to residential development in principle, nor is it intended to frustrate the continued operation of the existing café, which is a valued local asset. Rather, it is a focused and proportionate objection to the scale, density and disposition of development proposed under Policy BWC2, which I consider to be unsound, unjustified and inconsistent with the protections that apply to this site, in particular:

its location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (National Landscape); and

its inclusion within an Article 4 Direction area, specifically intended to retain local character and prevent harmful intensification.

1. High Weald AONB – failure to calibrate scale to landscape sensitivity

The entire site lies within the High Weald AONB, where national policy requires that great weight be given to conserving landscape character and scenic beauty.

Policy BWC2 fails to demonstrate that this statutory requirement has been met. Instead, the allocation relies on generic assertions that the site is “well contained” and that boundary trees provide adequate mitigation. This materially understates the sensitivity of the location and fails to recognise that harm in an AONB arises not only from visual exposure, but from:

the intensity of activity introduced;

the erosion of tranquillity and rural quiet;

and the creation of a suburban edge condition at the boundary with adjoining land.

A density of approximately 9 dwellings on a 0.3 hectare greenfield site represents an urbanising intensity that is fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the AONB designation.

2. Article 4 Direction – heightened sensitivity ignored

The site is subject to an Article 4 Direction, the purpose of which is to remove permitted development rights in order to exercise greater control over development that could harm character, landscape and amenity.

Policy BWC2 fails to acknowledge or apply the increased level of restraint that necessarily flows from the presence of an Article 4 Direction. Instead, it treats the site as though it were an ordinary village infill location, which it is not.

An Article 4 Direction is a clear signal that development pressure must be carefully moderated, not maximised. The allocation of this site for 9 dwellings is inconsistent with that purpose.

3. Immediate impact on adjoining residential amenity

The allocation does not properly assess the consequences of the site’s direct relationship with adjoining residential land.

The existing boundary consists of mature conifer trees located on the application site, which are tall but provide limited screening at lower levels, allowing clear views beneath the canopy.

As a result:

residential development close to this boundary would result in direct overlooking;

the introduction of domestic activity would cause a material loss of privacy and tranquillity;

future occupiers would inevitably exert pressure for additional fencing, lighting and tree management, further eroding the effectiveness of the existing buffer.

Tree retention alone does not resolve these impacts, particularly over the lifetime of a development.

4. Noise, light pollution and tranquillity

The baseline condition at the northern end of the site is quiet and dark, with existing café-related activity confined to the southern end of the site adjacent to the A265.

The introduction of multiple dwellings across the site would introduce:

domestic noise into an area currently characterised by rural quiet;

external lighting, car headlights and activity glow, harming dark skies and night-time tranquillity;

cumulative erosion of the peaceful character of the AONB.

These impacts are permanent and largely unconditionable once the quantum of development becomes excessive. They are core AONB considerations, not lifestyle preferences.

5. Over-allocation and unjustified density

Policy BWC2 allocates the site for approximately 9 dwellings without providing any site-specific justification as to why this level of development is necessary or appropriate in this location.

The allocation appears to be driven by an assumed capacity calculation rather than a calibrated response to:

landscape designation;

Article 4 sensitivity;

immediate residential relationships;

and the availability of alternative sites, including a recent and substantial redevelopment nearby which has yet to be absorbed by the market.

This results in a clear over-allocation of a sensitive site.

6. A reasonable and deliverable alternative

A more proportionate and sound approach would be to recognise that:

any development on this site should be strictly limited in scale;

development, if contemplated at all, should be confined to the southern end of the site, closest to the A265 and furthest from adjoining residential land;

this would contain activity near an existing noise source and preserve the quieter northern boundary as a landscape and amenity buffer.

In practical terms, this would mean no more than two dwellings, carefully sited and designed, rather than the 9 dwellings proposed under Policy BWC2.

This approach would allow modest value release and site improvement while avoiding the unacceptable harms identified above.

7. Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, Policy BWC2 is unsound as drafted. It:

fails to apply the required great weight to AONB protection;

disregards the heightened sensitivity implied by the Article 4 Direction;

over-allocates a greenfield village-edge site;

and does not adequately assess impacts on adjoining residential amenity, tranquillity, noise and light.

I therefore request that Policy BWC2 be modified, with any future consideration of this site limited to a substantially reduced form of development, not exceeding two dwellings, located at the southern end of the site only.

BWC1 (Land south of Heathfield Rd Burwash Common) is a greenfield site, well outside the development boundary, and, if built on, may open up the stretch of land between it and Linkway to future development. This would degrade the rural and historic landscape character of the High Weald AONB.
There has also been a recent housing development in Burwash Common which is still empty--only a couple of flats have been sold, but no houses. The housing demand is for inexpensive flats near transportation and jobs, neither available in Burwash Common.
Development should use brownfield sites, such as the other B.C. site (BWC 2)

Please see attached for full representation:

- Full representation on Draft Rother District Local Plan 2025-2042 Consultation (including underlined text and hyperlinks that do not appear in text copied out below)
- Supporting document: Southern Water input to Rother District Council’s 2026 IDP review
- Supporting document: IDP feedback provided for the Regulation 18 consultation deadline 23rd July 2024

Q5 We attach our separate IDP response to Rother as part of our feedback to this Regulation 18 consultation on the Local Plan, requesting update of the IDP in accord with the information and explanations provided. This also includes our feedback from the previous 2024 Regulation 18 consultation, in addition to a full explanation of how Southern Water plans investment for adopted local plans. Included within this explanation are our key AMP8 (2025-2030) investment plans for the Rother district. Some plans extend into AMP9, but for the reasons we explain in our IDP response, most AMP9 schemes are not known at this time.

There is considerable investment planned for the district in this 2025-2030 AMP8 period, supported by a range of technical disciplines. This represents the latest investment information and therefore supersedes the DWMP content referred to (as this DWMP work was concluded in 2023).

Q8 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

Q9 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage. This will be particularly important in areas where higher housing densities are proposed.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring all development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

Q10 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage. This will be particularly important in areas where higher housing densities are proposed.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring all development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

Q17 Q17 - all BX sites.

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording to all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to critical assets running beneath sites.”

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that a number of the new/changed sites (BX6, BX7, BX22, 23, 24, 27, 28, BX31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and BX41) may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and all those we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site BX9 and may require easements or diversion. For this site, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

Q19 For development to be sustainable, Southern Water believes that it must always deliver sustainable drainage. This will be particularly important in areas where higher housing densities are proposed.

Communities need planning policy to go further as climate change now demands we re-think and re-design communities. More resilient and efficient homes are essential – conserving both energy and water. However, we also need to ensure that housing design/delivery will not mean that rainwater continues to run off surfaces so fast that it causes flooding and storm discharges into rivers and seas. By controlling the rate and volume of surface water entering the combined sewer network, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) can improve existing flood risk and water quality.

We need planning policy to encourage proactive, cross-sector collaboration, as well as requiring all development to adhere to the principles of integrated water management in line with the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage (June 2025).

The complexities and challenges of drainage need a collaborative approach between the responsible organisations, such as Local Authorities, Southern Water, the Environment Agency and community groups to adapt the urban environment to be more resilient to our changing weather patterns. Together, we need to separate rainwater from wastewater.

26 CR1 to CR3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

However, we note that for site CR2 in particular, there is no wording in the site allocation policy to address the site’s proximity to an operational wastewater treatment works. In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to site CR2 is within 500m of Battle wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the additional wording –
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

28 GU1 & GU2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for site GU2 at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –

“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Southern Water infrastructure crosses GU2 and may require easements or diversion.”

30 GU4 & 5

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –

“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site GU5 and may require easements or diversion. For GU5, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

31 GU6

Southern Water has identified no constraints for this site at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

32 IK1&2

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site IK1 and may require easements or diversion. For IK1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

34 WS1 WS2, WS3 WS4 WS5

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that sites WS2 and WS3 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site WS3 and may require easements or diversion. For WS3, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

36 BT1 to BT11 (BT3, BT4, BT5, BT6)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to this site is within 500m of Battle wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the additional wording – The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that sites BT1, BT2, BT7, BT9, BT10 and BT11 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:
Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site BT11 and may require easements or diversion. For BT11, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

38 CT1 CT2 CT3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure may cross sites CT2 and CT3 and may require easements or diversion. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

39 NE1 & 2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

40 SD10 SD11 (SD1 to SD9)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to site SD11 (and as previously advised the for the existing site allocation SD7) is within 500m of Sedlescombe wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the following additional wording in these policies–
The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.

42 BC1 (BC2) BC3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site BC3 and may require easements or diversion. For BC3, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

43 (BR1) BR2 BR3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

44 CM1 to CM3

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

45 (ID1) ID2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site ID2 and may require easements or diversion. For ID2, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

46 NR1 and NR2

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for this site (NR2) at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

Additional policy wording is needed for each site to address it’s proximity to operational wastewater treatment works. The proposed boundary of each site is within 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works (Mill Corner Northiam WTW, and Quickbourne Lane Northiam WTW) and we therefore request the additional wording for each site policy –
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses site NR2 and may require easements or diversion. For NR2, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

47 PE1, 2 & 3 (PE4 & PE5)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

49 (RY1 to RY1, RY7&8) RY5, RY6 & RY9

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that sites RY5 and RY9 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses sites RY5, RY6 and RY9 and may require easements or diversion. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

50 RH1

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

53 BW1 to 4

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site BW1 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For this site, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:

Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Please note that Southern Water wastewater sewers cross all BW sites (BW1 to 4) and may require easements or diversion (so please note that whilst we agree that consultation with Southern Water will be required, it may not be necessary for the developer to deliver a package treatment plant as currently stated in part Xi of the policy. Were the developer to want to deliver such plant they will first need to consult with the Environment Agency). For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording:
Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

54 BWC1 and 2

Southern Water has identified no constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

55 EC1 to 3

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site EC1 and may require easements or diversion. For EC1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

56 (HG1&2) HG3 & 4

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site HG4 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy. For this site, and any we’ve previously requested phasing wording (unless the detailed planning consultation responses we’ve provided indicate otherwise) please include the following wording:
Occupation of development will be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the service provider.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site HG3 and may require easements or diversion. For HG3, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording:
Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

57 RB1, RB3, RB4 (RB2, RB5) to RB6a & RB6b

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundary to sites R3 and R4 (and also as will have been previously advised the boundary to existing site allocation RB2) are all within 500m of Robertsbridge wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the following additional wording for these policies–
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Also, Southern Water infrastructure crosses sites RB3, and RB5 and may require easements or diversion. For these sites, and any we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

58 SC1 & 2

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site SC1 and may require easements or diversion. For SC1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

59 FW1 to FW3

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site FW2 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water infrastructure crosses site FW2 and may require easements or diversion. For FW2, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

60 TC1 (or 2)

Please note that as we have already consulted on all existing allocated sites (in adding to offering LPA free consultations at planning application stage) we comment in this response on new/changed site allocation policies, where the site has not previously been allocated and planning applications have not yet been submitted.

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that site TC1 may have limited local network capacity, and phasing of development may therefore be needed alongside network reinforcement prior to occupation of the total number of dwellings indicated in each policy.

In addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more detailed checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We also encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.”

Southern Water infrastructure also crosses site TC1 and may require easements or diversion. For TC1, and any sites we’ve previously requested layout wording please also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

62 SG1 or 2

Southern Water has identified no potential capacity constraints for these sites at this Local Plan stage. For completeness, in addition to Rother consulting us on planning applications (for which we are not statutory consultees) so that we can share the results of more checks made closer to the timeline of expected development, Southern Water request the addition of the following wording –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

The proposed boundaries to each site are within 500m of Stonegate wastewater treatment works and we therefore request the following additional wording for these policies–
“The layout of development for any site allocation with 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Southern Water infrastructure crosses these sites and may require easements or diversion. For these sites please therefore also include the following wording: Layout of the development must be planned to ensure future access to existing sewerage infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

Q64 GYP1 to GYP6

Southern Water’s initial checks indicate that some of the GYP sites are proposed within 500m of operational wastewater treatment works. For example, the boundary to site GYP6 is within 500m of Robertsbridge WTW.

We therefore request Rother consult us on planning applications for all sites so that we can share the results of more detailed checks with the authority. Southern Water also request the addition of the following wording for all sites –
“We encourage early engagement by developers who can make use of Southern Water’s pre-planning service here – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/planning-your-development/pre-planning-enquiries/.
Early engagement will be particularly important for the larger site proposals, or where constraints are indicated due to the close proximity to operational wastewater treatment works or where there are critical assets running beneath sites.”

And for each site proposed within 500m of operational wastewater treatment works (eg GYP6) please include the following additional wording;
“The layout of ‘sensitive residences’ for any site allocation within 500m of an operational wastewater treatment works should be informed by an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with statutory wastewater operator for the works.”

Q69 Any other issues or comments?

All site allocations should be proposed in locations where utilities can provide for the forecasted needs of the development without prejudicing existing or future utility provision necessary to support growth. Southern Water therefore requests the following additional policy wording in the Regulation 19 draft of the Local Plan:
The utility network should be protected and development proposals that would compromise existing utilities infrastructure, or encroach on future connections for utilities, will be refused. Opportunities should be sought to safeguard the provision of utilities wherever possible.

Re the proposal for the site BWC1, I think this site is not suitable for the following reasons:

It is will be built near a very busy road junction “Lynchgate Hill / Heathfield Road (A265) “ Lynchgate hill is used all day for access to Stonegate Railway Station also as as through road to Wadhurst/Ticehurst and to the A21 via Lamberhurst or Flimwell, there is limited vision using this junction when turning out onto Heathfield Road on the direction of Weald village also near this junction school children cross the road to catch the school coach to Burwash primary school and secondary school children have to cross the A265 then cross Lynchgat hill and back across the A265 to get catch the bus to Heathfield secondary school by allowing this site to be built it would vastly increase the risk of accidents at this location.

The proposed site also is on a hill where the soil is made up of clay when ever it rains some of the water runs across the field onto the road or into a small ditch at the back of the hedge causing a flood pond to form in the corner by Highweald house and when the rain is heavy flood water it then continues across the footpath of the A265 into the drainage system.

High Weald house is next to this site and already some of the water runs into a flood river which runs along the East side of High Weald House and by allowing the site to be developed it would increase the water flow onto our property which the flood ditch/river would not be able to deal with and cause flooding and damage to our property which is also surrounded by the farm fields behind us these fields also drain into our drainage ditch/river over the last three years I have lived here I have gradually improved the drainage in the river which leads it the main road drainage system as it had been neglected before we arrived but I can’t see it taking the extra pressure of more land drainage and I would not be able to improve it to cope with it.

Also I would like to point out that the houses that have already been built at the east side of Lynchgate hill and completed about 18 months ago have not been sold so I cannot see see the point of building more houses across the road from these.

The report from English Heritage, East and West Sussex County Councils and Brighton and Hove Unitary, about Sussex’s Historic Landscape, concluded that the parish of Burwash had the greatest landscape survival from the medieval period in East Sussex. If over 200 years each generation uses the fields for houses it will disappear. Like the Peak District, the Lake District or Snowdonia, it needs to be kept as a whole.

The Old Orchard nursery site is worthy of consideration as there is no significant damage to the National Landscape and access is available. However, the East Sussex Highways department considers the access does not comply with their requirements. The trees need retaining and the drainage needs to be improved. The site must also NOT threaten the café as the only walkable community shop and meeting place and should not reduce the parking spaces for the café.

BWC2: Old Orchard Nursery site: . This is a good site, near the main road and clustered in with other buildings.
It is vital that ways be found to build affordable or affordably rented housing for villagers. There is a glut of big houses and of unbuilt sites with permission.

BWC2, Old Orchard: Suitable if the access to the busy A265 is widened.
BWC1, Clover Lees: Object: The proposed access to the A265 would require destroying the hedge along the main road and be too close to the Stonegate Road

Neither of the sites meet the requirement of sustainability outlined in the draft plan. They too far from the village centre, school, doctors surgery, shop, leading to more car use.

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

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

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

Development Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Development

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed draft Site Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Densities

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

Site Specific Policies

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

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

Individual proposed sites comments

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

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

Legislative Requirements

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

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

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

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

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


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

BWC1 - This field is not suitable for extensive development due to several reasons.
Flooding, this field is like a marsh most of the time, with constant pooling and surface water, to the point of saturation where eventually it then runs off into the roads, which then become flooded. My children have been soaked many times walking along that pathway by the passing cars. It even mentions in your plan there are issues with flooding, and that building should not take place on the NW side up by High Weald House due to this concern. How can you contemplate building somewhere that has known problems already, knowing full well that additional impact to the ground will only make the flooding worse. Combine that with no building to the South, this means that there is very little room to put many houses on there, especially with the required access.
There is zero or very limited infrastructure or facilities of use in this area - the sporadic bus service is not good enough, and the railway station is inaccessible unless by car as there are no buses, and it is not safe to walk there.
There are currently 24 properties for sale in the immediate area, including building plots and new builds that have not sold for well over a year. If you expand the search to a few miles, there are over 100 properties for sale - this does not strike me as an area that is struggling for supply, and clearly there is not the demand. I cannot see why you would want to create more empty properties sitting there at the expense of greenfield land.
The road bordering the field is an incredibly dangerous road as it is; the 40mph limit is constantly disregarded, so introducing substantially more traffic from a new development can only increase the risk of accidents. Not only this, but the pathway is the only route to the bus stop for many children trying to get to the local schools, so there are concerns their safety could be impacted.
On a personal note - I cannot believe that I have moved into an area of outstanding natural beauty, surrounded by green fields having moved from a town, to be faced with constant requests for development and planning. It appears that the local councils will only be happy once they have paved over every piece of greenfield land. It is so disappointing to have to face this barrage of developer greed in a small settlement in the country.

BC1 This site opens directly out on to a busy A road near a significant junction. It is a ribbon development which sets a dangerous precedent for futher developments along the Heathfield Road. Like a lot of these sites it has a negative impact on what we used to call an area of outstanding beauty.
BC2 This is a site with which I am less familiar. It seems more discreet. However I am aware that the recent re-development of the old people’s home site close by caused a lot of drainage issues with water flooding neighbouring properties and the playing field.

BWC1. (1) A pristine, greenfield site in the High Weald NL. To allow it to be developed for housing would be environmental vandalism. (2) Designated as an 'Area that Could become Important for Biodiversity (ACIB). If developed, that opportunity is lost - so much for 'Green to the Core'! (3) The site is well outside the Burwash Common development boundary. There is no justification for extending urbanisation so far to the west. The green gaps between settlements must be protected. (4) Approval for development here opens up all the sites to the east up to Linkway field, which has already been rejected for housing. The arguments that apply to Linkway field apply in spades here. (5) There are safety issues over access, especially if BWC2 immediately opposite is also developed. (6) The site is not sustainable in planning terms; any development will inevitably be car-led.

Site BWC1 (formally BUR27) The field near Clover Leys Cottage, Heathfield Road, Burwash Common
We consider this site is NOT suitable for allocation/development
● It is an ancient field. The HELAA 2026 and the draft Plan point there would be significant damage to the High Weald National Landscape.
● This site has been designated by Sussex Local Nature Recovery as an “Area that could become Important for Biodiversity (ACIB)”. If developed, this opportunity will be irretrievably lost. It is not clear that a 20% measurable biodiversity net gain could be delivered by any development if, at the same time, the site is lost as an ACIB.
● The site is a raised site and therefore views to the site would become more prominent.
● The risk of surface water run-off would add to local flooding issues on the A265.
● The draft Local Plan suggests the houses would ‘front the road’, so the development would be ribbon development.
● The site sits 400 metres outside the current Burwash Common development boundary. Expanding the boundary to this extent is unlikely to be justified as it will not “promote a sustainable rural economy” or “meet recognised local needs for facilities or affordable housing”.
● The draft Local Plan raises the issue of access and suggests removal of the ancient hedgerow to facilitate a safe access point. A very significant part of the hedge would have to go before there would be sufficient sight lines for safe vehicular access onto the road. It is within a 40mph stretch of the A265, while the speed limit rises to 50mph east of the site’s western boundary.
● The draft Local Plan indicates that a new hedge would have to be created and so the damage to the ancient field system and the ancient hedge would be very substantial.
● The site is not “sustainable’. As the HELAA 2026 states Burwash Common has limited services and development will therefore inevitably be ‘car-led’.
● Initial Highway authority comments raise concern with visibility and footway provision.

Site BWC2 (formerly BUR0039) - The Old Orchard Nursery site, off Heathfield Road, Burwash Common
Deserving consideration for allocation/development
● The site was formerly used as a nursery. It is now redundant. As it had a former commercial use it could be described as a brownfield site. It now forms excess land that lies to the rear of the remaining sections of the business.
● The site is a well screened, infill site with developed areas to the south, the east and north-east, while trees provide dense screening to the west, north and east, which would be important to retain to ensure that the site remains well screened.
● There would be minimal damage to the National Landscape. The site is enclosed and so it would not be visible to others.
● The development would be infilling rather than ribbon development.
● The site is also served by an existing pedestrian footway that connects to a bus stop some 130m beyond the junction to the east.
● The trees need to be retained.
● The East Sussex Highways authority objected to the site at a planning in principle application on the basis of access. The application reference number is RR/2025/185/P. The application, re-submitted, has received a revised decision. .
● Density – there are concerns that the 9 properties proposed for this site represent a significant over-development.
Other factors:
● The major concern is the threat to the café. This is a key asset and not only is it a useful food outlet it also has an important social element. The original plans had the cafe being replaced. Rother District Council said it would not be acceptable. Currently the staff used the provisionally allocated site for parking. If the allocated site became houses there would be potential issues in relation to the availability of car parking. The current car park is currently inadequate for the popular café. The lay by on the road takes few cars. Rother District Council should consider imposing a site requirement that the car parking spaces should be increased by using part of the allocated site.

BC1: OBJECT
This is a greenfield site, so will cause harm to existing biodiversity as well as to the rural landscape. The site is bordered by a historic hedgerow which will have to be removed. The site is raised above the A265, so adding hard surfaces over the land is likely to add to the flooding conditions along the A265.
BC2: SUPPORT
The is a semi-brownfield site on the site of an old nursery. If the trees must be retained/replaced for screening.. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based. Burwash Common is listed as a development hub, this is due to the café being situated at the Old Orchard (one of the sites). If the Old Orchard Cafe closes due to the development behind the café, Burwash Common should no longer be considered as a hub.

BC1: OBJECT
Greenfield, also part of the medieval field pattern with historic hedgerow therefore harms biodiversity as well as the rural landscape. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based.
BC2: SUPPORT
In principle support as this is the site of an old nursery, so close to brownfield status. If the trees are retained for both screening and to retain Biodiversity the impact is reduced. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based.

See attached representations and supporting documents from Burwash: Save Our Fields in response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 53, 54, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69.

See attached representations and supporting documents from Burwash: Save Our Fields in response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 53, 54, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69.

To Rother District Council,
We have completed the online consultaion but send this additionally as background where we have had to edit comments to meet the word count.

A copy of this is attached. If it can be added in support of those comments, we would be most appreciative.

Wild About Burwash (WAB) response to Rother District Council Draft Local Plan: Consultation Stage Reg 18
WAB is a community group with more than 230 members, the majority of whom are residents in Burwash Parish. The group’s aims are to support and encourage the protection of, and improvements to, the natural environment of the parish. This includes talks, walks and other events. WAB volunteers do a lot for the local environment, including:
• Active recording of flora and fauna biodiversity through the National Biodiversity Records Office
• Monthly monitoring of the water quality and the state of the riverbanks of the River Dudwell, with support from the Environment Agency (this project is now expanding to the River Rother in association with other Wild About groups)
• Regular maintenance of St Phillips Church churchyard in association with the Sussex Botanical Recording Society to record and protect wildflowers in the churchyard + development of a wildflower verge in association with the Parish Council
• Light pollution monitoring in and around Burwash in association with the High Weald NL and nine other local parishes to apply for International Dark Skies Reserve status
• Apple picking in elderly residents’ gardens and local ancient orchards to create WAB apple juice. In 2025 we produced 1,200 bottles. Income from the juice goes to orchard restoration and development
• Active engagement with Scouting group and Burwash school on Dark Skies, Orchards and Rivers projects.
WAB’s suggestions for all future developments in Burwash
WAB suggests that any new development in Burwash parish should:
a. Be built on brown/grey field sites and not on greenfields
b. Not cause environmental / biodiversity harm that then requires to be "recovered" .
c. Be within walking distance of shops and services
d. Be screened to ensure the buildings are not harmful in the landscape
e. Have good local public transport links
f. Meet the local rural housing needs for starter and retirement homes.
All developments, if agreed, should meet environmentally-friendly energy requirements, be dark skies compliant in terms of windows and external lighting and support wildlife (e.g. swift bricks) .
QU 15: Vision for the Countryside
Whilst the reference to countryside here describes areas outside defined development boundaries, for rural parishes like Burwash the countryside is inseparable from the overall community; development invariably backs onto or is surrounded by countryside. The stated Vision for the future of the Countryside is worrying. The value of the countryside appears to be defined at point 6.97 solely in terms of economic productivity - either from food or tourism or the opportunity to conserve it. There is no reference to the inherent beauty of landscape - the High Weald represents one of the best-preserved remaining examples of a medieval landscape in western Europe - no reference to topography, hedgerows, trees, woodland and rivers. Even more alarmingly there is no mention of flora, fauna or even a nod to protecting biodiversity and nothing to describe remoteness, tranquility and a sense of place.
BW1: OBJECT
This is a greenfield site which includes Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat, with three ponds and a stream. From a previous planning application which was turned down by RDC for representing "substantial harm to the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB (now NL), the presence of great-crested newts, grass snakes and slow worms were identified along with evidence of bats using habitat features on site and other protected wildlife. The site will be car-based and lacks a footpath to services.
BW2: SUPPORT
In principle support as the site is already built on. There is no footpath to the village and it would be car-based.
BW3 and BW4: OBJECT
Both sites are greenfield and form part of the historic landscape field pattern. They currently provide a green field break/ green corridor with hedgerows and link with the Local Wildlife Site / Ancient Woodlands at Park Wood. Ribbon development urbanises the rural lane and adds traffic pressure as the site would be car-based and lacks a walkway to services. Harm to Biodiversity.
BC1: OBJECT
Greenfield, also part of the medieval field pattern with historic hedgerow therefore harms biodiversity as well as the rural landscape. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based.
BC2: SUPPORT
In principle support as this is the site of an old nursery, so close to brownfield status. If the trees are retained for both screening and to retain Biodiversity the impact is reduced. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based.

To Rother District Council,
We have completed the online consultaion but send this additionally as background where we have had to edit comments to meet the word count.

A copy of this is attached. If it can be added in support of those comments, we would be most appreciative.

Wild About Burwash (WAB) response to Rother District Council Draft Local Plan: Consultation Stage Reg 18
WAB is a community group with more than 230 members, the majority of whom are residents in Burwash Parish. The group’s aims are to support and encourage the protection of, and improvements to, the natural environment of the parish. This includes talks, walks and other events. WAB volunteers do a lot for the local environment, including:
• Active recording of flora and fauna biodiversity through the National Biodiversity Records Office
• Monthly monitoring of the water quality and the state of the riverbanks of the River Dudwell, with support from the Environment Agency (this project is now expanding to the River Rother in association with other Wild About groups)
• Regular maintenance of St Phillips Church churchyard in association with the Sussex Botanical Recording Society to record and protect wildflowers in the churchyard + development of a wildflower verge in association with the Parish Council
• Light pollution monitoring in and around Burwash in association with the High Weald NL and nine other local parishes to apply for International Dark Skies Reserve status
• Apple picking in elderly residents’ gardens and local ancient orchards to create WAB apple juice. In 2025 we produced 1,200 bottles. Income from the juice goes to orchard restoration and development
• Active engagement with Scouting group and Burwash school on Dark Skies, Orchards and Rivers projects.
WAB’s suggestions for all future developments in Burwash
WAB suggests that any new development in Burwash parish should:
a. Be built on brown/grey field sites and not on greenfields
b. Not cause environmental / biodiversity harm that then requires to be "recovered" .
c. Be within walking distance of shops and services
d. Be screened to ensure the buildings are not harmful in the landscape
e. Have good local public transport links
f. Meet the local rural housing needs for starter and retirement homes.
All developments, if agreed, should meet environmentally-friendly energy requirements, be dark skies compliant in terms of windows and external lighting and support wildlife (e.g. swift bricks) .
QU 15: Vision for the Countryside
Whilst the reference to countryside here describes areas outside defined development boundaries, for rural parishes like Burwash the countryside is inseparable from the overall community; development invariably backs onto or is surrounded by countryside. The stated Vision for the future of the Countryside is worrying. The value of the countryside appears to be defined at point 6.97 solely in terms of economic productivity - either from food or tourism or the opportunity to conserve it. There is no reference to the inherent beauty of landscape - the High Weald represents one of the best-preserved remaining examples of a medieval landscape in western Europe - no reference to topography, hedgerows, trees, woodland and rivers. Even more alarmingly there is no mention of flora, fauna or even a nod to protecting biodiversity and nothing to describe remoteness, tranquility and a sense of place.
BW1: OBJECT
This is a greenfield site which includes Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat, with three ponds and a stream. From a previous planning application which was turned down by RDC for representing "substantial harm to the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB (now NL), the presence of great-crested newts, grass snakes and slow worms were identified along with evidence of bats using habitat features on site and other protected wildlife. The site will be car-based and lacks a footpath to services.
BW2: SUPPORT
In principle support as the site is already built on. There is no footpath to the village and it would be car-based.
BW3 and BW4: OBJECT
Both sites are greenfield and form part of the historic landscape field pattern. They currently provide a green field break/ green corridor with hedgerows and link with the Local Wildlife Site / Ancient Woodlands at Park Wood. Ribbon development urbanises the rural lane and adds traffic pressure as the site would be car-based and lacks a walkway to services. Harm to Biodiversity.
BC1: OBJECT
Greenfield, also part of the medieval field pattern with historic hedgerow therefore harms biodiversity as well as the rural landscape. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based.
BC2: SUPPORT
In principle support as this is the site of an old nursery, so close to brownfield status. If the trees are retained for both screening and to retain Biodiversity the impact is reduced. The site is on a bus route, although, due to poor frequency of service, it will inevitably be car-based.