I object to the proposed allocations HG3 and HG4 in Hurst Green.
The Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan has recently been endorsed at referendum and establishes a clear development boundary and level of growth. HG3 and particularly HG4 represent a significant and unjustified departure from this strategy.
HG4, at approximately 150 dwellings, would be a major expansion of the village within the High Weald National Landscape. Such development should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, which have not been demonstrated. The scale proposed is disproportionate and raises serious concerns regarding infrastructure, especially access to the A21.
There are also brownfield sites within the village, including land currently in commercial use, which should be prioritised before releasing greenfield land.
While HG1 and HG2 are supported as existing commitments, HG3 and HG4 are not justified and should be removed from the Plan.

I strongly object to the proposed allocations HG3 and HG4.
The Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan has only just been endorsed at referendum and should carry full weight. The inclusion of these sites fundamentally undermines a plan that has been independently examined and democratically approved by the local community.
HG4, at around 150 dwellings, represents a substantial and inappropriate expansion of the village within the High Weald National Landscape. This clearly constitutes major development, yet no exceptional circumstances or overriding public interest have been demonstrated. The scale is excessive and wholly out of keeping with the character and capacity of Hurst Green.
There are also suitable brownfield sites within the village which should be prioritised. Releasing sensitive greenfield land in a protected landscape before these are properly considered is unjustified.
HG1 and HG2 are acceptable, but HG3 and HG4 should be removed.

See attached.

Hurst Green has asmall primary school, a very basic shop & a Village Hall. No other amenities to adequately cope with more housing. It is the only village in this area that has the A21 running through its heart & allowing more vehicles to directly access this will only cause more issues with potentially fatal consequences. We are currently a dark skies area, more housing will affect this. Not to mention the wildlife that uses both the proposed sites of HG 3&4. HG3 had planning permission refused in 1989, partly due to access to the busy A21 & also due to lack of amenities. What has changed, except that the A21 is even busier & more dangerous & we have less amenities than we did back then. Hurst Green has inadequate parking, inadequate facilities, inadequate water & sewage facilities & inadequate speeding restrictions to cope with more houses.

I’m in social housing and was allocated an offer in Lamberhurst. I’m grateful, but it’s unworkable. There’s no train station, infrequent buses, and long travel times to work and essential appointments. The biggest obstacle is school: my child needs reliable, everyday access. From Lamberhurst, connections are patchy and would mean multiple changes or long walks, risking lateness or absence. That isn’t sustainable.

Hurst Green is the opposite: the railway station at Etchingham is walkable, there are safer routes to school, and shops and services are reachable without a car. But the problem is supply. Suitable, affordable homes rarely become available, and the small sites identified locally aren’t producing social or affordable tenures.

This is why HG4 matters. A single, well‑planned development can deliver the numbers and the mix -family homes with affordable options - alongside coordinated access and road safety improvements. For households like mine, HG4 would turn an unworkable placement into a stable home, with secure school access and real participation in village life.

I’m a teenager, and I want planners to think about what the future of Hurst Green means for people my age. If families can’t find homes here, then young people miss out on school connections, friendships, and the chance to feel part of the village. Right now, hardly any suitable or affordable homes come up, and that means fewer students in local schools, clubs, and chances to meet people our own age.A larger development like HG4 could change that. When more families move into a village, more activities, clubs, and opportunities grow with it. It also means more first‑job options for teenagers, local shops, cafés, childcare, and community spaces often expand when the population increases. Having safe routes and access to the station also matters to us, especially for school and work. HG4 could help create a village where young people can study, make friends, and actually see a future

I support this given the provision of parking and the village green. But there was supposed to be affordable housing. They have applied to remove this requirement. Those houses should not be converted into regular housing in my view they should not be allowed to build them. Also re the parking I'd like to know whether this will be free parking or whether someone will profit from it. And whether there will be restrictions. Would be good for those who live nearby to be able to use it for guests

I absolutely object to Hg4. Too many houses are proposed given the other 3 sites. It is too small a space and there is insufficient infrastructure in place. If there was a bus to and from Etchingham station I would understand it but there are too few buses none to a key station and this would encourage more cars and lead to the village growing by more than 10 to 15% with this development alone.

I am writing as a resident who has lived in Hurst Green for almost fifteen years. Over this time, I have watched the village lose many of the services and facilities that once enabled people to live comfortably and independently here. As someone now in my seventies, this decline is something I feel personally and acutely.

Although I still drive rarely, I no longer feel confident doing so unless absolutely necessary. A recent near‑miss pulling out of my driveway on to the A21 has made me even more anxious about driving, especially during busy times. Like many older residents, I increasingly rely on walking, lifts from friends, and the limited public transport we have. My independence now depends heavily on having essential services located within safe and accessible walking distance.

It is from this lived experience that I want to express my strong support for the allocation of HG4: Land at The Lodge.



1) Hurst Green is losing essential services because there has been no real investment

Over the past decade, Hurst Green has been losing services at pace. The pub closed, the village shop closed, and the post office closed. Each closure removes another reason for people to stay local, meet their neighbours, or complete daily tasks without getting in a car. These losses are not isolated events — they stem from a lack of meaningful investment in the centre of the village and a long‑standing pattern of small or stalled developments that contribute little or nothing to community infrastructure. Without a step‑change, the village will keep hollowing out.

HG4 is the only site large enough and well‑located enough to help turn this around by generating the population, footfall, and developer contributions needed to sustain and reinstate core services.

2) People come and go because the housing stock is unbalanced

Hurst Green lacks a good mix of homes. There are too few suitable options for younger families, key workers, single people, and downsizers — especially close to the centre. The result is churn: people arrive, cannot find the right home as their needs change, and move away again. This instability weakens schools, clubs, and local trade.

A development of HG4’s scale can deliver a balanced mix of housing types and sizes, including homes suitable for older residents who want to stay near services, and for families who would otherwise have to leave. That stability is essential if we want to protect and rebuild village life.

3) For years there was almost no development — even as the population grew

For a long period, Hurst Green saw little to no development, despite a gradual increase in population and demand. That mismatch put pressure on existing services without bringing any new investment. It left us with ageing infrastructure, fewer amenities, and an ever‑shrinking centre of activity.

Only now, after this long hiatus, have a couple of small sites come forward — and they have stalled or progressed too slowly, delivering no significant infrastructure or social benefit. Repeating this approach will not solve our problems.

4) HG4 is the practical, accessible choice — vital for independence

For residents who avoid driving, or who drive rarely, location is everything. HG4 is:

Within safe walking distance of the village centre
Close to existing community anchors (local farm shops supporting local businesses, school, church, social spaces)
Connected to bus routes and the mainline railway
This accessibility is not a luxury; it is what allows people in their later years — and households with limited car use — to remain independent.

5) HG4 can underpin the facilities we need back in the village

A development of meaningful scale in the right place can make local services viable again. In particular, HG4 can help to:

Support a local GP presence (especially relevant as a nearby practice is currently accepting NHS patients)
Re‑establish a post office service, which is essential for many older residents and non‑drivers
Bolster everyday retail and small businesses through increased footfall
Provide or enable multi‑use community space so people can meet, participate, and support each other
These are not “nice to haves.” They are the lifelines that let residents complete everyday tasks without a car — and that keep a village alive.

6) Doing nothing is more damaging than well‑planned growth

The trajectory is clear: closures of the pub, village shop, and post office; stalled small sites; no significant investment; and a housing mix that pushes people to move away. That is what “doing nothing” looks like.

By contrast, HG4 offers well‑located, meaningful growth that can:

Deliver a mixed, more stable community
Create the conditions for services to return and persist
Reduce isolation and dependence on driving
Bring developer contributions that actually benefit the whole village
Conclusion

Hurst Green is at a tipping point. The village is losing services because there has been no investment, and it is dying at pace as a result. The closure of the pub, the village shop, and the post office are symptoms of that decline. Small, scattered developments have failed to help; some have stalled; none has delivered the infrastructure or social value we need.

HG4: Land at The Lodge is the practical, accessible, and community‑minded option that can reverse this trend. It has the scale to support a proper mix of homes, the location to sustain independent living for residents who drive rarely, and the capacity to make essential facilities viable again — including a GP presence and a reinstated post office.

For these reasons, I urge the Council to award HG4 a high score in the site assessment and to recognise it as the best route to a living, sustainable Hurst Green where residents can remain independent and connected.

I am writing as a resident who has lived in Hurst Green for almost fifteen years. Over this time, I have watched the village lose many of the services and facilities that once enabled people to live comfortably and independently here. As someone now in my seventies, this decline is something I feel personally and acutely.

Although I still drive rarely, I no longer feel confident doing so unless absolutely necessary. A recent near‑miss pulling out of my driveway on to the A21 has made me even more anxious about driving, especially during busy times. Like many older residents, I increasingly rely on walking, lifts from friends, and the limited public transport we have. My independence now depends heavily on having essential services located within safe and accessible walking distance.

It is from this lived experience that I want to express my strong support for the allocation of HG4: Land at The Lodge.



1) Hurst Green is losing essential services because there has been no real investment

Over the past decade, Hurst Green has been losing services at pace. The pub closed, the village shop closed, and the post office closed. Each closure removes another reason for people to stay local, meet their neighbours, or complete daily tasks without getting in a car. These losses are not isolated events — they stem from a lack of meaningful investment in the centre of the village and a long‑standing pattern of small or stalled developments that contribute little or nothing to community infrastructure. Without a step‑change, the village will keep hollowing out.

HG4 is the only site large enough and well‑located enough to help turn this around by generating the population, footfall, and developer contributions needed to sustain and reinstate core services.

2) People come and go because the housing stock is unbalanced

Hurst Green lacks a good mix of homes. There are too few suitable options for younger families, key workers, single people, and downsizers — especially close to the centre. The result is churn: people arrive, cannot find the right home as their needs change, and move away again. This instability weakens schools, clubs, and local trade.

A development of HG4’s scale can deliver a balanced mix of housing types and sizes, including homes suitable for older residents who want to stay near services, and for families who would otherwise have to leave. That stability is essential if we want to protect and rebuild village life.

3) For years there was almost no development — even as the population grew

For a long period, Hurst Green saw little to no development, despite a gradual increase in population and demand. That mismatch put pressure on existing services without bringing any new investment. It left us with ageing infrastructure, fewer amenities, and an ever‑shrinking centre of activity.

Only now, after this long hiatus, have a couple of small sites come forward — and they have stalled or progressed too slowly, delivering no significant infrastructure or social benefit. Repeating this approach will not solve our problems.

4) HG4 is the practical, accessible choice — vital for independence

For residents who avoid driving, or who drive rarely, location is everything. HG4 is:

Within safe walking distance of the village centre
Close to existing community anchors (local farm shops supporting local businesses, school, church, social spaces)
Connected to bus routes and the mainline railway
This accessibility is not a luxury; it is what allows people in their later years — and households with limited car use — to remain independent.

5) HG4 can underpin the facilities we need back in the village

A development of meaningful scale in the right place can make local services viable again. In particular, HG4 can help to:

Support a local GP presence (especially relevant as a nearby practice is currently accepting NHS patients)
Re‑establish a post office service, which is essential for many older residents and non‑drivers
Bolster everyday retail and small businesses through increased footfall
Provide or enable multi‑use community space so people can meet, participate, and support each other
These are not “nice to haves.” They are the lifelines that let residents complete everyday tasks without a car — and that keep a village alive.

6) Doing nothing is more damaging than well‑planned growth

The trajectory is clear: closures of the pub, village shop, and post office; stalled small sites; no significant investment; and a housing mix that pushes people to move away. That is what “doing nothing” looks like.

By contrast, HG4 offers well‑located, meaningful growth that can:

Deliver a mixed, more stable community
Create the conditions for services to return and persist
Reduce isolation and dependence on driving
Bring developer contributions that actually benefit the whole village
Conclusion

Hurst Green is at a tipping point. The village is losing services because there has been no investment, and it is dying at pace as a result. The closure of the pub, the village shop, and the post office are symptoms of that decline. Small, scattered developments have failed to help; some have stalled; none has delivered the infrastructure or social value we need.

HG4: Land at The Lodge is the practical, accessible, and community‑minded option that can reverse this trend. It has the scale to support a proper mix of homes, the location to sustain independent living for residents who drive rarely, and the capacity to make essential facilities viable again — including a GP presence and a reinstated post office.

For these reasons, I urge the Council to award HG4 a high score in the site assessment and to recognise it as the best route to a living, sustainable Hurst Green where residents can remain independent and connected.

Object strongly to HG1, as this provides a green space for the village and where residents go for countryside walks - HG1 is near the village cricket pitch. This will impact on the beauty of the landscape.

Object to HG2, too many houses in the area where they can be built.

The Traffic Light Scheme mean that the village is already impacted by noise and pollution and this will only add to it.


No more houses should be build UNTIL THERE IS A BYPASS.

I am an 80yearold woman and have lived in Hurst Green for nearly 15 years. I am
writing this in my own words, because I feel I must speak up. I love this village
dearly, but over the years I have watched it slowly fade. We have lost our Post
Office, we lost our little café, and now many of us older people have nowhere left to
go, nowhere to meet, nowhere to feel part of the village anymore.
When you get to my age, loneliness is a very real thing. I lost my husband some
years ago, and without places to go and people to see, the days can become very
long and very quiet. I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. A lot of my
friends, many older than me, say the same. We have been left behind here.
This is why I want to say strong, full support for the HG4 allocation at The Lodge. It
is the first plan I have seen in years that actually gives me hope that Hurst Green
could have a heart again.
At the moment, our village has no proper centre, no proper meeting places, no real
gathering spots. HG4 is the only site big enough and in the right place to help
change that. If it is done properly, it could bring:
 small community spaces so people can meet and talk,
 safe walking paths so older people like me can get out without fear and meet
people,
 places for children and teenagers to play and socialise,
 seating areas and sheltered spots where we can rest and chat,
 and a sense of life and belonging that Hurst Green has been missing for a
very long time.
Since becoming a widow, I have struggled without anywhere in the village to
socialise. The parish council supported small developments before, but they never
brought anything new for the community. Nothing changed for us older residents.
And now we see the consequences: closed facilities, fewer services, and a village
that feels like it is shrinking.
HG4 is different. It is big enough to truly help. It can bring in the funding needed to
provide the community spaces we have been asking for for years—simple things, but
things that make all the difference to people my age. I would love somewhere to walk
safely, somewhere to sit and rest, somewhere to meet other villagers without having
to rely on buses or lifts out of the area.
My grandchildren live here with me, and I want them to grow up loving Hurst Green,
not thinking of it as a place with nothing for them. HG4 offers the chance for better
play areas, better footpaths, and somewhere to take them that isn’t dangerous or too
far away. It would help families stay here, instead of moving away because there is
nothing for them.

To me, HG4 is:
 welllocated for the whole village to use,
 large enough to deliver real benefits like green space and gathering places,
 the only sensible way for Hurst Green to grow in a balanced, healthy way,
 and a onceinageneration opportunity to bring life and pride back into our
community.
I have read about the Rother Charter—I may be old, but I do try to keep up. It says
planning should support wellbeing, community and local identity. HG4 is the only
plan that seems to do that for us. It offers the chance to tackle loneliness, improve
mental health, and give people somewhere to belong again.
Please believe me when I say: this is not just about houses. It is about rebuilding a
community that has been declining for years. It is about giving people like me a
reason to get out of the house. It is about creating a village that my children and
grandchildren will want to stay connected to long after I am gone.
I ask you, please, to keep HG4 in the Plan and to make sure it includes proper
spaces for people, not just buildings. Hurst Green has waited a very long time for
something good. Please do not let this chance slip away.
Thank you for listening to an old woman’s voice. It means more than you know.

A BY PASS IS NEEDED BEFORE ANY MORE HOUSING - A21 already has 16,000+ vehicles going through village.

OBJECTIONS

HG3 - will affect the villagers - where they go for walks and enjoy the High Weald. The local cricket pitch and lovely countryside walks and habitats will be affected. OBJECT STRONGLY TO THIS.

HG4 - Roundabout and BY PASS required and any housing built should not effect any future By Pass. Too many houses 150 - in an area which can be built on. Poorly located.

Additional Representation – Response to HGPC Social Media Posts (Regulation 18)
Submitted by the Landowners of HG4 – Land at The Lodge, London Road, Hurst Green
________________________________________
Materiality: This submission addresses consultation accuracy and interpretation. It explains why recent HGPC public communications & social posts should carry limited evidential weight at Regulation 18, given their selective use of figures and omission of relevant, Parish-held policy information.
Purpose of this submission (in addition to our formal Reg 18 representations):
• To respond to the Hurst Green Parish Council (HGPC) public communications, Facebook posts and infographics.
• To highlight material omissions, selective presentation of facts, and misleading impressions created by those posts.
• To ensure that Rother District Council (RDC) is aware that the HGPC messaging does not reflect the full body of information available to the Parish nor the content of the made Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan (HGNP).
• To request that RDC treat the HGPC social-media commentary with limited evidential weight when weighing consultation responses.
HGPC objection and evidential weight: HGPC’s public communications ahead of and during Reg 18 make clear a settled opposition to HG4 and present residents with selective, outdated figures while omitting relevant Parish held evidence and adopted HGNP objectives for A21 safety and movement improvements. We respectfully request that RDC records HGPC’s statutory objection but affords it limited evidential weight relative to the Reg 18 evidence base and the made HGNP. In particular, HGPC’s stance dismissing HG4 as “not justified” disregards both the plan led delivery route set out in the HGNP and HGPC’s own Coopers Corner supporting paper evidencing long standing safety need.
Access & ethics: We note that while the HGPC post is publicly visible, some stakeholders – including us as landowners – were unable to comment while others could. While social media is informal, communications from a public body during a statutory consultation should strive for openness and even handed engagement.


1) The “38 homes” narrative is not a formal planning baseline
The “38 homes” figure presented in HGPC’s posts reflects early scoping from a policy only phase. It was not a settled or published settlement requirement. The current Regulation 18 stage is the first to present site allocations with capacities for public scrutiny and refinement. This is the proper context for testing numbers and attaching infrastructure requirements.


2) HGPC’s posts omit adopted HGNP objectives that change the planning balance
The made HGNP sets specific infrastructure and safety priorities – including junction solutions at Coopers Corner and A21/Station Road, safer routes to school, walking and cycling links that avoid reliance on the A21, appropriate off street parking to reduce on pavement parking, dark skies friendly lighting, and improvements to the public realm. HGPC’s social posts do not reference these adopted objectives, creating an incomplete account of local policy and how mitigation is intended to be delivered.
Why this matters: these improvements require scale to deliver. Allocation scale development such as HG4 provides a viable and customary mechanism to secure the requested safety and movement works through planning obligations and phasing. Presenting development solely as a burden, without noting the HGNP’s delivery route, risks misrepresenting the balance of the adopted plan.
3) Long standing A21/Coopers Corner safety concerns are downplayed in the posts
A21/Coopers Corner has long been cited locally and nationally as a serious road safety concern requiring major intervention, alongside calls for improved crossings, gateway measures and safer routes to the primary school. HGPC’s recent posts about the draft Local Plan do not reference this context. The effect is to emphasise burdens while omitting the very safety outcomes the community has consistently requested. Allocation scale development offers a practical route to secure these works through binding obligations and triggers.
4) Constraints listed by HGPC are addressed by plan led mitigation – not reasons to halt plan making
The issues listed by HGPC (roads, school capacity, primary care, water) are precisely those addressed through a plan led approach using allocation specific obligations, delivery triggers and phasing. It is not a planning reason to oppose all growth simply because constraints exist; the test is whether proportionate mitigation can be secured. Allocation scale development is the normal route to funding junction upgrades, safer routes to school improvements, and active travel links at the scale previously advocated locally.
5) The posts imply unanimity that does not exist
HGPC’s social posts speak in collective absolutes. In practice, consultation exercises routinely evidence a range of resident views. Over stating consensus risks distorting the perception of local opinion within the Reg 18 record.
6) Summary of omissions and their effect
HGPC’s posts:
Omit: adopted HGNP infrastructure and safety priorities; long standing A21/Coopers Corner safety concerns; Councillor Brown’s 2019 Coopers Corner study; that allocation scale development is the delivery pathway for these improvements; that “38 homes” was not a formal planning expectation; and that constraints are normally addressed through mitigation.
Emphasise instead: outdated or informal figures; one sided concerns; a narrative of unresolvable strain; and an implied village consensus.
Road Safety Improvements at Coopers Corner: Supporting Paper Download the HGPC hosted study from the Hurst Green Parish Council website.
We note that the Coopers Corner ‘Road Safety Improvements’ paper is published on the Hurst Green Parish Council’s own document repository, and therefore constitutes HGPC’s own evidence; its omission from recent HGPC posts materially affects the weight that should be attached to those posts.
The effect is an incomplete and inaccurate picture for residents and decision makers unless balanced by accurate submissions, including this one.
7) Our position
We welcome scrutiny of HG4. We support a plan led approach that secures safety, infrastructure, connectivity, environmental quality and phased delivery. We object to selective or incomplete public statements during a statutory consultation that omit material policy context and restrict even handed engagement. It is important that RDC recognises these omissions when considering the weight to attach to HGPC’s social media commentary.
8) Respectful Request to Rother District Council
• Treat the HGPC social media posts with limited evidential weight within the Reg 18 record due to their selective presentation and omissions.
• Acknowledge that HGPC’s posts are not a full or balanced summary of local planning evidence or community aspirations and should not be afforded disproportionate weight.
• Continue to assess HG4 against adopted HGNP objectives, current Reg 18 evidence, and normal plan led mitigation practice, with appropriate phasing and obligations.
• Given HGPC’s pre declared opposition and the omission of both the made HGNP objectives and HGPC’s own Coopers Corner evidence, we ask that their objection—which dismisses HG4 as “not justified”—is recorded but afforded limited evidential weight, with HG4 assessed against the Regulation 18 evidence and adopted neighbourhood policies.



As elected representatives, HGPC members have a clear social and civic responsibility to present a balanced account of policy and evidence to the whole parish, not only the elements that support a particular narrative. On the evidence set out above—namely, the omission of HGNP policies that the Council itself promoted and the acknowledged funding reality discussed at recent public meetings—this standard has not been met.
Taken together—the omission of the made HGNP’s delivery policies in current posts, the Parish Council’s own public statements about funding constraints and the limits of lobbying, and earlier campaign activity by some members during the HGNP referendum that did not consistently present the same caveats—there is now credible evidence of a systemic pattern of selective communication by HGPC. Elected members have a social and civic duty to provide balanced, whole parish representation; repeatedly presenting only part of the policy and delivery context falls short of that standard, risks misleading by omission, and reasonably raises concerns that such conduct may bring the Council into disrepute by failing to reflect the adopted framework and the interests of all residents.
Given the Parish Council’s own confirmation that neither they nor the District Council possess the funding to deliver the HGNP’s infrastructure objectives without contributions secured through plan led development, HGPC’s current stance amounts to advocating for an outcome that cannot fulfil the made Neighbourhood Plan. This creates a clear policy contradiction: the Council is promoting a position that removes the only delivery mechanism identified in the HGNP. While this does not imply improper intent, it does demonstrate a form of lobbying for an outcome that is not capable of achieving the parish’s adopted objectives, and it raises legitimate questions about whether residents are being fully informed of the practical consequences of this approach.

Request for Full Re Assessment of the HG4 Site Suitability & Sustainability Appraisal
(Dual Compliance: AONB Enhancement + Delivery of Made Neighbourhood Plan Objectives)
Introduction (from the landowners of HG4)
We submit this representation as the landowners of HG4, following a full review of the Regulation 18 consultation materials, the emerging Local Plan evidence base, the made Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan (HGNP) and the extensive public domain documentation on A21 safety at Coopers Corner. Over the consultation period, we have had the opportunity to research, test and verify the merits of HG4, and to assess how new information materially changes the site’s sustainability position.
On that basis, we formally request that Rother District Council re assesses the Site Suitability Appraisal (SSA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA/SEA) for HG4 as part of the Regulation 18 process.
This request is grounded in new, material, site specific evidence demonstrating that HG4 uniquely delivers a powerful dual compliance:
1. AONB Enhancement — HG4 enables a reduction in existing harm caused by the long recognised safety, severance and movement problems at Coopers Corner, thereby improving tranquillity, village coherence and the experience of the High Weald landscape.
2. Direct Delivery of Made Neighbourhood Plan Objectives — HG4 is the only site in Hurst Green capable of facilitating the movement and safety interventions at Coopers Corner required by the made HGNP, including a roundabout/safety solution and improved pedestrian connections.
This dual role means HG4 offers public interest benefits of exceptional alignment with adopted policy, which were not reflected in the original SSA/SA scoring.
________________________________________
1. What has changed during Reg 18 — and why a re assessment is necessary now
A. Safety evidence is now fully established and current
Across the consultation evidence, the A21 at Coopers Corner is consistently identified as one of the most dangerous junctions in the area, with a long record of serious and fatal collisions. This creates a sustained and severe settlement level harm for Hurst Green: unsafe pedestrian conditions, community severance, noise peaks, fear of traffic, hindered access to services and a degraded experience of the AONB.
Recent updates from the national safety programme on the A21 confirm active, interventions, multi month disruptions and corridor wide improvements being prioritised. The safety problem at Coopers Corner is therefore not speculative — it is recognised, documented and current.
B. HG4’s enabling role is now clear and proven
Through the Reg 18 process, it has become evident that HG4 is the only site with the geographic position, highway relationship and land control to enable or significantly support a redesigned Coopers Corner junction or equivalent movement/safety upgrade.
No other site in Hurst Green offers this strategic interface with the A21/A229 network.
No other site can practically deliver the HGNP’s movement/safety policies.
And no other site provides a proportionate, plan led, deliverable mechanism for supporting the national A21 safety programme.
C. The SA/SEA framework requires reassessment when new evidence changes predicted effects
The Local Plan’s sustainability appraisal process is explicitly iterative. New, relevant evidence — particularly safety, movement, settlement impact and AONB experience evidence — must be revisited.
Because the original appraisal did not consider HG4’s ability to unlock a solution to one of the district’s most severe safety constraints, its conclusions on transport, health, landscape and community wellbeing are now incomplete.
A Reg 18 re assessment is necessary to maintain a legally robust, justified and effective plan making process.
________________________________________
2. Dual Compliance Explained — Why HG4 is uniquely valuable
A. AONB Enhancement (High Weald National Landscape)
The High Weald demands that development is small scale, landscape led and justified through clear public benefit. HG4 satisfies this not merely through good design — but through addressing a major, long standing existing harm within the landscape.
A dangerous, noisy, collision prone junction at the entrance to the village is itself a significant detractor from AONB qualities: tranquillity, rural character, pedestrian safety, coherence, legibility and dark skies.
By enabling a safer, calmer junction and improving pedestrian conditions, HG4 contributes positively to:
• reduced severance;
• reduced incident driven disruption;
• a safer, more coherent settlement edge;
• improved tranquillity;
• an enhanced day to day experience of the High Weald.
This is public benefit directly relevant to the statutory landscape purpose.
B. Delivery of the Made Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan
The HGNP (now made) requires:
• A Coopers Corner roundabout or equivalent safety upgrade;
• Improved A21/Station Road safety;
• Safer and more accessible pedestrian movement;
• Better integration of the settlement without using unsafe A21 adjacent routes.
These are not aspirational wishes — they are statutory development plan objectives supported by the community and independently examined.
HG4 is the only site capable of delivering them.
It is the only site that physically interfaces with the A21/A229 junction in a way that can enable land, geometry and contributions to support a reconfigured, safer movement solution.
This places HG4 in a category no other site occupies:
a site that turns made Neighbourhood Plan policy into deliverable reality.
________________________________________
3. Specific SA/SSA Scoring Areas Where HG4 Should Now Improve
Below is a concise breakdown of where the new evidence materially improves HG4’s sustainability position and why these scores must be uplifted:
1) Transport & Road Safety
• HG4 directly enables intervention at the district’s most severe collision hotspot.
• Forecasted outcomes: drastically improved safety, reduced KSI risk, safer pedestrian crossings, smoother traffic operation & reduced speeds.
2) Health & Wellbeing
• A safer A21 improves daily life, reduces stress, increases confidence in walking routes, protects vulnerable users and supports access to local services.
3) AONB & Landscape
• By reducing an existing harm (danger and severance), HG4 offers a net enhancement to the High Weald landscape experience.
• Landscape led design, hedgerow reinforcement and dark skies lighting further protect and enhance the AONB.
4) Accessibility & Sustainable Travel
• A reconfigured junction + new safe crossing points unlock sustainable walking routes, both existing and extending routes to the village, school, facilities and bus stops.
• HG4 uniquely supports active travel in a location currently too dangerous for many residents to use on foot.
5) Noise, Community Severance & Movement Quality
• Fewer collisions and smoother traffic reduce sirens, braking, acceleration peaks and emergency disruptions.
• The village becomes more connected and less divided by the A21.
6) Air Quality & Carbon
• Fewer incidents = fewer queues and less idling.
• Safer walking/cycling conditions support marginal mode shift.
7) Green Infrastructure & Biodiversity
• HG4 can deliver landscape led SuDS, ecological corridors and 10%+ BNG.
• Removing severance improves functional habitat continuity.
8) Plan-Led Delivery & Soundness
• HG4 is the only allocation option capable of implementing the HGNP’s adopted safety policies.
• Deliverability can be secured through land dedication, timing triggers, safety audits and a High Weald compliant design code.
These improvements materially alter HG4’s SA/SSA scoring and overall sustainability ranking.
________________________________________
4. Delivery Commitments (Landowners of HG4)
We commit to:
• Safeguarding and dedicating land required to support a Coopers Corner highway intervention.
• Entering into S106 secured triggers linking development phases to safety scheme milestones.
• Providing a High Weald design code covering materials, massing, hedgerow structure and dark skies lighting.
• Supporting Road Safety Audits (Stages 1–4) and delivery in coordination with National Highways.
• Implementing post opening monitoring (pedestrian activity, speeds, near misses, flows) to validate benefits.
These commitments demonstrate deliverability, certainty, and public benefit alignment.
________________________________________
5. Formal Regulation 18 Request
On the basis of the new and material evidence outlined above, we respectfully request that:
1. HG4 receives a full re assessment within the Site Suitability Appraisal and Sustainability Appraisal as part of the Regulation 18 process.
2. The Council updates HG4’s SA/SSA scoring across transport safety, health, landscape/AONB, accessibility, noise/air quality, green infrastructure and plan compliance criteria.
3. HG4 is recognised in the Reg 18 evidence base as a site of strategic value, capable of delivering a long sought safety intervention at Coopers Corner and fulfilling core objectives of the made Neighbourhood Plan.
This reassessment is essential to ensure the Local Plan remains accurate, justified and effective at the Regulation 18 stage.

Dear planning team,
We have already submitted a couple of landowner representations for Site HG4. Our eldest son (21) has also independently submitted his own personal representation as an adult resident with his own supportive views.
As the Regulation 18 consultation draws to a close, our younger children asked: “Why doesn’t anyone ask us what we think?”
They have grown up at The Lodge (HG4) and wanted their experiences to be heard. We are therefore submitting two further personal statements expressing lived experience views from our children (attached as a single document):
• XXXXX(15) – a young resident explaining how the A21 currently limits independence, friendships and confidence, and how an infrastructure led solution linked to HG4 could create a safer, connected village for his generation.
• Our middle son, XXXXXX(a vulnerable young adult with Down syndrome) - his, first person statement describing what’s important to him so he can continue to enjoy the countryside and live more independently. Because of his vulnerability, this statement is being sent from my email.
We feel that these lived experiences are relevant to plan making because they highlight highway safety for vulnerable users, the need for safe, inclusive access, and the importance of landscape led design that protects the High Weald character while delivering practical measures (paths, crossing, seating, and bus stop improvements) in the public interest.
I wasn’t sure to submit these via the planning portal, given their age.
Thank you for considering our children’s voices alongside our previous submissions.
Kind regards,
Rachel & Gary Kenchington
For residents of The Lodge (HG4)

HG4 – Children’s Personal Submissions
Residents of The Lodge (HG4), Hurst Green
XXXXXX Submission – Young Adult
(First person statement)
I have lived at The Lodge by the A21 for a long time. I love the countryside here because it makes me feel calm and safe. People need homes, and I know this can be a happy place to live. But the A21 is very fast and unsafe, and I cannot cross it. I have Down syndrome and need safe paths and places to sit outside. Please keep the countryside peaceful and make it safe for me.
Submission 2 – XXXXXXXXXX (Age 15)
I am 15 and have lived at The Lodge since 2013. Growing up beside the A21, the danger at Coopers Corner has been constant. I support Site HG4 because it is the only realistic way to secure the land and funding needed to fix this junction. For young people, the A21 feels like a wall. It limits my independence, friendships, and confidence. A safer layout would let us walk and cycle without fear, improving life and wellbeing.
Our Neighbourhood Plan identifies a roundabout here as a priority. HG4 is the route to deliver it: the allocation enables the land contribution and planning obligations required for the scheme, alongside homes and affordable homes. I trust the Parish Council to choose an infrastructure led solution that protects residents now and in the future. Please back HG4 so Coopers Corner is made safe and Hurst Green becomes a connected village for my generation.

I fully support the proposed development in Hurst Green. This project will bring much-needed housing and boost the local economy. The addition fits perfectly with the area's need for new residents and residencies, and the developer's commitment to community expansion is impressive. I'm excited to see this become a reality and contribute to Hurst Green's growth.

Question 56 - Proposed Site Allocations HG1–HG4
Overview of Positions
Planning permission has already been granted for sites HG1 (28 houses) and HG2 (26 houses). Sites
HG3 and HG4 are therefore the focus of this submission.
Both proposed sites are outside the existing development boundary, which was expanded in
November 2025. Both sites are within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) and as such are
afforded the protection of a “duty to conserve and protect the environment.” Development, especially
on such a major scale as that proposed for HG4, is directly at odds with the purpose of National
Landscape designation. Further, large housing estates are not characteristic of High Weald villages.
• HG1 (Land South of Iridge Place, 28 dwellings): Supported. The site benefits from planning
permission and represents a proportionate and well-related extension to the settlement.
• HG2 (Land South of Lodge Farm, 26 dwellings): Supported on the same basis.
• HG3 (Land to rear of The Olde Bakery): Supported in principle, subject to modification - see
response.
• HG4 (Land at The Lodge, London Road): Objected to in full - see response.
Site HG3 - Land to rear of The Olde Bakery
HG3 occupies a relatively sustainable location close to the village centre and would represent a
modest and reasonably integrated addition to the settlement. The community’s Neighbourhood Plan
Vision supports “sustainable and sensitive housing development that enables us to deliver on our
vision and objectives, developing the facilities that are needed to address the current and future
needs of our community.” HG3, properly conditioned, has the potential to meet that test. HGPC
supports the principle of this allocation subject to: reduction in residential density to fewer than 35
dwellings per hectare; parking provision at above-guidance standards, to address the significant
existing community parking deficit; and affordable housing prioritised for those with a local connection
to Hurst Green or surrounding parishes. Without these modifications, the allocation risks conflict with
the Hurst Green Design Codes and Neighbourhood Plan policies on character, density, and local
need.
Suggested Modifications
The following modifications are suggested to render this aspect of the plan sound:
Amendment 3 - Modification to Policy HG3
Suggested Modification
Amend Policy HG3 to:
(a) Reduce the indicative density to fewer than 35 dwellings per hectare;
(b) Require parking provision at above-guidance standards for all residential dwellings;
(c) Require the provision of dedicated community parking within or immediately adjacent to the site, to
alleviate the existing parking pressure on neighbouring residents who currently have no adequate
parking provision;
(d) Require affordable housing to be prioritised for those with a local connection;
Codes.”
(e) Insert: “Development must reflect the prevailing character of Hurst Green, provide a sensitive
transition to the surrounding countryside, and demonstrate compliance with the Hurst Green Design
Reason: Without modification, HG3 risks delivering development that conflicts with the Hurst Green
Design Codes and Neighbourhood Plan. These modifications ensure consistency with local character
policy and respond to the documented parking deficit.
12
Site HG4 - Land at The Lodge, London Road
HGPC objects in the strongest terms to the allocation of Site HG4. The allocation is fundamentally
unsound on all four tests under NPPF paragraph 35 and should be deleted from the Local Plan.
Not Justified: No Evidence of Local Need
There is no settlement-specific evidence that supports the allocation of 150 dwellings at Hurst Green
beyond what is already committed. The AECOM Housing Needs Assessment (2019) and parish-level
survey identify need at a fraction of this scale - need that has already been met by existing
permissions at HG1 and HG2. The site was not present in the Council’s Summer 2024 consultation
and appeared, without explanation, in the January 2026 draft. The Parish Council notes with concern
that this reflects a pattern consistent with developer-led rather than plan-led allocation.
The site was previously assessed through the Neighbourhood Plan process under the reference
HG25 and was rejected by AECOM on grounds of remoteness, landscape sensitivity, and highway
conflict. The current proposal is substantially larger than the assessed site and none of the material
constraints have changed.
Not Justified: Major Development in a National Landscape
The proposal for approximately 150 dwellings constitutes major development within the High Weald
National Landscape. NPPF paragraphs 176–177 require refusal of major development except in
exceptional circumstances where it can be shown to be in the public interest. The three-part test -
addressing nature of need, absence of alternatives, and whether public benefit clearly outweighs
environmental harm - has not been addressed in any part of the draft allocation. No exceptional
circumstances case has been advanced.
A Planning Inspector dismissed a proposal for a single dwelling on part of this site in April 2020, citing
“significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the AONB.” The current proposal is
materially larger, and the material considerations are unchanged.
Not Consistent with National Policy: Countryside and Settlement Character
Rother’s own draft Local Plan states that development in the countryside must be “strictly limited” and
must “maintain or improve rural character.” HG4 comprises isolated greenfield agricultural fields at the
northern edge of the settlement, outside the development boundary, and constitutes countryside by
the Council’s own definition.
The proposed density of approximately 35 dwellings per hectare is approximately 46% higher than the
densest existing development in Hurst Green (Coronation Gardens, 24 dph) and some seven to eight
times the density of comparable greenfield edge-of-village development in the area. It fails to provide
the sensitive and graduated transition to the surrounding countryside required by NPPF paragraph
130 and the Hurst Green Design Codes. It conflicts with Design Code policy HGNP.DC.2.5A, which
requires density to reflect the character of the surrounding area. This is not a natural extension of the
village - it is a high-density urban estate on open countryside.
Conflict with the Statutory Development Plan
The Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan (made December 2025) is part of the statutory development
plan. The allocation conflicts with at least 11 of its 20 policies, including those relating to settlement
location and sprawl, countryside transition, density and character, A21 setback, dark skies, Local
Green Space, and protected views. The allocation was introduced into the draft Local Plan within
weeks of the Neighbourhood Plan’s adoption, without evidence and without justification. This directly
undermines the plan-led system. National policy (NPPF paragraphs 13–14 and 30–31) requires clear
and evidenced justification before departing from a made neighbourhood plan. None has been
provided.
Highway Safety
The A21 route through Hurst Green is considered one of the UK’s most dangerous stretches of road.
The increasingly high volume of traffic that passes through the village is not conducive to a safe and
healthy environment for Hurst Green’s community, and it is not appropriate to be considering any new
13
major housing developments in the vicinity of the village which will contribute to traffic volumes. Hurst
Green is one of very few settlements – and by far the largest – on the A21 that is not bypassed.
The A21 presents a serious and documented pedestrian safety risk. A 151-resident petition in 2016
highlighted the dangers. The AECOM SEA (February 2023) validated those concerns. A child
pedestrian was seriously injured in a hit-and-run incident on the A21 in Hurst Green in February 2026,
during the consultation period itself. The primary school is situated directly on the A21, accessed via a
narrow pavement on the western side only. The development would add materially to pedestrian and
vehicle movements on this stretch of road, with no deliverable mitigation strategy identified.
The Parish Council notes the landowners’ suggestion that a roundabout at Cooper’s Corner
represents a community benefit capable of justifying the allocation. This is not a sound argument. Any
junction improvement at that location would be required as a direct consequence of the development
generating traffic: it is a standard planning obligation, not an independent public benefit. National
Highways reviewed and rejected the Cooper’s Corner roundabout proposal in 2025 as poor value for
money. It does not address speeding through the village or pedestrian safety on the A21 corridor.
Developer highway mitigation is not a justification for major development in a National Landscape.
Should a full bypass, as has been proposed in the past, remain on the table, then HG4 must
absolutely be kept free of development. Any future development options should avoid potential future
bypass and relief road locations. The allocation of 150 dwellings on this site would permanently
foreclose that option, and no assessment of this has been undertaken.
Physical and Environmental Constraints
The allocation has been advanced without adequate evidence. The following constraints - individually
significant and cumulatively severe - are not reflected in the capacity assessment of 150 dwellings:
• A high-pressure SGN gas transmission main crosses the northern portion of the site, creating a
no-build corridor and consultation zone that has not been accounted for in the capacity
calculations
• The northern field is required as the biodiversity receptor site for HG2. Development at HG4
would undermine the ecological function of that receptor site and create a fundamental conflict
with the Environment Act 2021 biodiversity net gain obligations
• Ancient woodland and hedgerow buffers requiring mandatory setbacks reduce the developable
area
• Surface water flood risk associated with the lake and watercourse
• The Lodge curtilage - identified in the draft policy as green infrastructure - is and would
presumably remain in private residential ownership and is not deliverable as public open space
unless it is demolished.
• The Lodge itself (Etchingham Lodge, c.1845) is a non-designated heritage asset. No heritage
impact assessment has been undertaken
When these constraints are properly excluded, the realistic developable area reduces to
approximately 2.2–2.7 hectares, supporting 22–40 dwellings at an appropriate density. The 150
dwelling figure is not credible.
Absence of Required Technical Evidence
The allocation has been made without the evidence required for a sound allocation at Regulation 18
stage. There is no Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Ecological Impact Assessment,
Heritage Impact Assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Viability Assessment, or
Infrastructure Delivery evidence. This is inconsistent with sound plan-making practice and makes it
impossible to assess whether the allocation can be delivered.
Summary of Grounds for Objection to HG4
For ease of reference, HGPC’s grounds of objection to Site HG4 are summarised below:
• This site was previously dismissed as unsuitable for development by RDC in 2020 and none of
the reasons for rejection have been addressed.
14
• It violates at least 11 NPPF (December 2024) policy areas: paragraphs 8, 11, 36, 84, 110, 124,
135, 139, 187, 189, and 190.
• This is an unsustainable location and a major development would result in harm to the HWNL
and urban sprawl. The northern part of the site lies well beyond the development boundary and,
with dangerous, narrow, polluted pavements along the busy A21 trunk road in a Dark Skies
area, even short journeys, for example to Hurst Green Primary School, will inevitably be
undertaken by car. Additionally, with few facilities, amenities or employment opportunities in the
village, the vast majority of trips to and from the development will be made by car.
• Direct conflict with the very recently made (December 2025) Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan,
including direct violation of the established guidance requiring properties to be set back from the
A21 due to heavy traffic, and disregard of the community’s adopted planning policies.
• Critical infrastructure constraint – a high-pressure gas main running under the northern part of
the site poses a significant limitation on the development potential of a significant portion of the
site and is not reflected in the capacity calculations.
• Constitutes a major development in the HWNL without demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
RDC’s policy advocates against large estates in rural areas and for smaller developments of
good design, which fit harmoniously into the landscape.
• The RDC-commissioned AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment (February 2023)
independently validated community concerns, supporting the unsuitability of the site for
development.
• Conflicts with adopted Hurst Green Design Codes: the proposed density of 35 dwellings per
hectare is almost 50% higher than any existing character area in the village.
• Fails RDC’s own A21 Corridor Strategy criteria – no reasonable level of local services and no
existing opportunities for sustainable travel.
• Contradicts RDC’s vision for Northern Rother, requiring sensitive development, sustainable
forms, protection of landscape character and farmland capacity.
• Contradicts RDC’s vision for the countryside and its twin overall priorities of “Green to the Core”
and “Living Well Locally.”
• Unrealistic housing capacity once The Lodge curtilage (identified as green infrastructure), the
gas main corridor, ancient woodland buffers, the HG2 biodiversity receptor site buffer, hedgerow
buffers and flood zone areas are excluded.
• The site (northern part in particular) is isolated from the village centre.
• Such a large, prominent development would have a major detrimental impact on RDC’s aims to
promote a Dark Skies policy within the HWNL.
• Destruction of non-designated heritage asset (The Lodge).
Conclusion on HG4
Site HG4 is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national policy. It conflicts with the
statutory development plan. It is not supported by an adequate evidence base and is not
demonstrably deliverable. It should be deleted from the Local Plan without qualification. The allocation
also conflicts with every strand of the community’s Neighbourhood Plan Vision: it does not support
health and happiness - it adds children to a road that has already seriously injured a child; it does not
support business and tourism - it replaces productive farmland with a dormitory estate; it is not
sustainable and sensitive housing - it is unjustified major development in a National Landscape; it is
incompatible with the travel and transport vision - it creates 150 car-dependent households on the
most dangerous road in the village; and it contradicts the land and nature vision by permanently
destroying countryside the community has committed to protect. On every measure the community
has set for itself, HG4 fails.
Suggested Modifications
The following modifications are suggested to render this aspect of the plan sound:
Amendment 4 - Deletion of Policy HG4 (Principal Modification)
15
Suggested Modification
Delete Policy HG4 in its entirety, including:
• The site allocation policy
• The Proposals Map designation
• All supporting text and cross-references in the Local Plan
Reason: As demonstrated in Part 3, HG4 fails comprehensively:
• Not justified: No evidence of local need; no exceptional circumstances case; site previously
rejected through the Neighbourhood Plan process and on appeal in 2020
• Not effective: No confirmed access or infrastructure delivery; constraints reduce realistic
capacity to 22–40 dwellings; no viability evidence
• Not consistent with national policy: Fails the NPPF major development test (paragraphs 176
177); conflicts with countryside, sustainable transport, and design policy
• Conflicts with the development plan: Direct conflict with 11 policies of the made Hurst Green
Neighbourhood Plan
Consequence if unmodified: HG4 is the single greatest risk to the soundness of the Local Plan as it
relates to Hurst Green. It will be a focal point of challenge at Examination. There is a high probability
that an Inspector would recommend deletion. Its continued inclusion creates significant legal risk
under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

A proposal to build housing on what is a rapid highway, when little consideration for the 30 mile per hour speed limit is currently given. Multiple fatal accidents at Coopers Corner over the last 24 years of being a resident and horrendous tailbacks due to traffic demand. One vehicle parked outside the fish and chip shop or other delivery vans stopping in the village creates tailbacks in both directions towards Flimwell and Robertsbridge. Coopers Corner cannot seriously be considered as a suitable location due to safety concerns. It suffers with current traffic load so it would be inconceivable that you consider it safe to add 150 homes to the village. The additional vehicular demand trying to access the A21 is an ill conceived proposal. The current roadworks at Station Road must be proof that with a 'minor' change in daily traffic flow it causes a crisis.

I understand the residents of The Lodge are on the Parish Council!

I am not a resident of Hurst Green, but I am a regular presence in the village. My friends live here; my family spends time here; my teenagers and I walk our dogs along its footpaths often enough to notice when something has changed. Visiting a place repeatedly but not living in it gives a particular kind of perspective: you see the slow shifts, the fading activity, the spaces where people used to gather and now simply don’t. That is the lens through which I have watched Hurst Green over the past several years—gently, gradually, becoming quieter than a village with this much potential should ever be.
What stands out most now is not what has changed, but what is missing. The central services that once pulled people into the heart of the village have gone. The shop, the café, the post office—these closures are not small losses. They are the structural pieces that hold rural communities together, and without them, the centre of Hurst Green has lost a part of its gravity. Teenagers, in particular, have nowhere to simply be—no informal, safe, everyday spaces where they can meet, talk, and feel connected. As a parent, it is impossible not to notice the impact of that absence.
This is why HG4 matters. The conversation about HG4 is too often reduced to “more houses,” when the real opportunity is much bigger. HG4 is the only site of a meaningful scale, in a logical location, that can actually bring people—and therefore life—back into the village. A thriving community needs residents who use local services, support local groups, keep the school viable, and bring activity into the village core. HG4 provides the population base to make that possible again.
Crucially, HG4 is also the only allocation capable of unlocking the kind of infrastructure improvements Hurst Green urgently needs. Every visitor who has tried to navigate Coopers Corner or walk safely along the A21 knows how hostile the routes can feel. A plan that brings new homes without also bringing safer crossings, extended walking links, and public realm investment would push the village further into decline. A plan that ties growth to infrastructure—HG4’s model—gives Hurst Green a path into a safer and more connected future.
I spend a lot of time outside with my dogs and teenagers, so I understand how important it is to protect the green setting around the village. But protecting landscape does not mean refusing well‑planned development; it means directing growth to the places that can accommodate it while enhancing the spaces people value. HG4, because of its position and scale, can deliver green corridors, better connections to footpaths, and improvements that make the countryside more accessible—not less.
Above all, HG4 offers Hurst Green something it has been lacking for too long: momentum. The village needs people, infrastructure, and confidence in its own future. Without that, the drift into decline continues. With HG4, there is a genuine chance to reverse it.
For those reasons, I am adding my voice—distinct from the residents, but deeply connected to the place through regular experience—to say that HG4 is not only reasonable, but necessary. It gives Hurst Green the tools to rebuild its centre, reconnect its young people, and restore the social vitality that has been slipping away. I hope the Council recognises the value of that opportunity and carries HG4 forward in the next stage of the plan.

Regulation 18 Representation — HG4 (A21/A229 Coopers Corner Gateway)
Submitted by: Sole landowners of HG4
1) Executive Summary
This submission provides new, highly relevant evidence focused on the A21/A229 Coopers Corner junction. It presents a junction‑specific collision ledger with Police/Emergency call‑outs, contemporary resident testimonies from the Hurst Green 2030/HGNP evidence base, and the policy context at Regulation 18. It shows how a safety‑led, landscape‑led HG4 allocation meets the National Landscape ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘public interest’ tests while aligning with the adopted Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan objectives and the Draft Rother Local Plan’s increased housing requirement.
2) Coopers Corner Collision Ledger
Scope: Incidents explicitly naming Coopers Corner in the location/closure description; each entry states emergency attendance and why HG4 mitigates.
12 July 2024 — A21 both ways from B2099 to A229 (Coopers Corner)
Highlight: Two‑vehicle collision; lanes partially blocked; delays recorded. [SussexWorld, 12 Jul 2024]
Emergency attendance: Police/Ambulance (standard two‑vehicle RTC).
Why HG4 mitigates: Roundabout/deflection at CC + gateway speed environment reduce approach speeds and right‑turn/merge conflicts; improves gap acceptance and reduces shunt risk.
6–7 October 2022 — A21 closed ~12 hours between A268 (Flimwell) and A229 (Coopers Corner)
Highlight: Fatal, three‑vehicle collision; Police collision investigation overnight. [SussexWorld, 7 Oct 2022]
Emergency attendance: Sussex Roads Police led; Ambulance on scene; Air Ambulance: not specified.
“Sadly the driver of one of the vehicles died at the scene.” — Sussex Police (reported 7 Oct 2022).
Why HG4 mitigates: A controlled node at CC moderates flows entering the A229 arm, imposes predictable approach speeds/deflection, and reduces high‑energy conflicts at (and immediately around) the junction.
16 October 2022 — A21 closed both ways between A229 (Coopers Corner) and A2100 (Battle)
Highlight: Collision forcing full closure with Coopers Corner named as the boundary; local diversions. [Police travel notice, 16 Oct 2022]
Emergency attendance: Sussex Police confirmed attendance.
“Sussex Police are in attendance...” — Police notice (16 Oct 2022).
Why HG4 mitigates: Junction visibility, refuge and deflection at CC, plus a coherent speed environment, directly address the crash‑prone node that currently necessitates police‑led closures.
3) Government & Agency Evidence (extracts)
National Highways: ‘These are critical safety improvements on this busy stretch, which has a high incident rate… The A21 has, for many years, suffered from a significant level of collisions.’ [KentOnline 16 Oct 2025; National Highways A21 Safety Package]
National Highways updates: repeated overnight closures between Flimwell and Coopers Corner confirm a named operational node in the A21 safety programme. [National Highways A21 Safety Package]
Parish (Jan 2018): Coopers Corner identified as ‘statistically the worst junction in East Sussex’; MPs escalated the danger to the Roads Minister. [Hurst Green Parish Supporting Paper, Jan 2018]
4) Residents’ Evidence Base (verbatim)
• ‘The pavement is very narrow… it is not always possible to keep children on the pavement.’ [A21 School Route evidence, 2016]
• ‘I live opposite the school and am fearful that the volume and speed of traffic will one day catch us out and a child will be harmed.’ [A21 School Route evidence, 2016]
• ‘Speed of traffic on A21 — No 1 issue… Dangerous Coopers Corner junction, often impossible to turn onto the A21.’ [HGNP Kick‑off Engagement, Feb 2018]
• ‘Roundabout at Coopers Corner and A21/Station Junction.’ [Resident Consultation/Exhibition feedback, Oct 2021]
• ‘Speed reduction action is urgently needed at both Coopers Corner and Silver Hill — ideally roundabouts!’ [Resident Consultation/Exhibition feedback, Oct 2021]
• ‘Hurst Green suffers from poor NMU access particularly along A21 + Station Road. What are NH going to do…?’ [Resident Consultation/Exhibition feedback, Oct 2021]
• ‘Entrance at Coopers Corner… would get the longed‑for roundabout built as part of consent.’ [Housing Demand Survey, 2019]
4a) Local Voices — Contemporary Evidence (2018–2024)
Across the HGNP evidence base, residents repeatedly link village liveability to resolving A21 danger: calls for a Coopers Corner roundabout and safer crossings; concerns about narrow footways on the school route; and the explicit suggestion that a Coopers Corner access would ‘get the longed‑for roundabout built’ as part of consent. These statements are new, material inputs that strengthen the public‑interest case for a land‑enabled junction solution delivered through HG4.
5) AONB Exceptional Circumstances & Public Interest
The updated National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024; amended February 2025) confirms that major development in National Landscapes should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The tests include need (including national considerations), alternatives, and environmental effects and their moderation. The High Weald Management Plan 2024–2029 is a material consideration. In this context HG4 is purpose‑built to tackle an existing, junction‑specific safety hazard at the named node (A21/A229 Coopers Corner) with a design that reduces approach speeds and conflict angles, provides NMU refuge/links and applies dark‑sky‑compliant, hedgerow‑reinforcing mitigation. This is a location‑specific, land‑dependent remedy that meets the exceptional‑circumstances and public‑interest tests while conserving and enhancing the High Weald’s special qualities.
6) Regulation 18 & Delivery Context
Rother’s Regulation 18 consultation (Development Strategy and Site Allocations) is open and sets a trajectory for 8,427 homes to 2042, requiring difficult decisions about where development takes place and emphasising deliverability and infrastructure. The Government published the 2023 Housing Delivery Test on 12 December 2024 and Rother has prepared a 2023 HDT Action Plan (June 2025). In this context, sites that directly couple housing delivery with infrastructure solutions carry additional weight. HG4 uniquely binds the junction safety scheme to occupations, ensuring the safety benefits are delivered early in the plan period.
Appendix A — Source Notes
• SussexWorld (7 Oct 2022) — Fatal, three‑vehicle collision; ‘Sadly the driver… died at the scene’; closure A268 (Flimwell) ↔ A229 (Coopers Corner).
• Police travel notice (16 Oct 2022) — A21 closed between A229 (Coopers Corner) and A2100; ‘Sussex Police are in attendance…’.
• SussexWorld (12 Jul 2024) — A21 ‘both ways from B2099 to A229 (Coopers Corner)’ two‑vehicle collision; delays/partial blockage.
• National Highways — A21 Safety Package (South East) — ‘high incident rate / significant level of collisions’; repeated closures Flimwell ↔ Coopers Corner.
• KentOnline (16 Oct 2025) — NH quote: ‘critical safety improvements… high incident rate… significant level of collisions’.
• Hurst Green Parish Supporting Paper (Jan 2018) — Coopers Corner ‘statistically the worst junction in East Sussex’; MPs escalated to the Roads Minister.
• HGNP Evidence — A21 School Route (2016); Kick‑off Engagement (2018); Housing Demand Survey (2019); Resident Consultation/Exhibition feedback (2021).
• Rother Draft Local Plan Reg 18 (Mar 2026) — Development Strategy & Site Allocations; provision for 8,427 homes to 2042.
• DLUHC — Housing Delivery Test ‘2023 measurement’ (12 Dec 2024) and RDC Housing Delivery Test Action Plan (June 2025).
• High Weald Management Plan 2024–2

I am writing as someone who spends long periods in Hurst Green with my family. I use the village every day when I am here — walking with my three grandchildren, using the footpaths, and trying to get around safely as an older person. I see the same problems residents do: almost no shared spaces, unsafe walking routes, and a village split in two by fast roads.

Because of this, I want to give my strong support for HG4 – Land at The Lodge.

Even as someone who only stays part‑time, it is clear to me that Hurst Green is missing the basics that make a village feel connected. There is no central place to meet, no green where families and older people naturally cross paths, and no safe routes where you can walk with children without worry. HG4 is the only site that feels big enough, central enough, and realistic enough to finally deliver these things.

HG4 can help the village in three very important ways:

Safety: The A21 and surrounding roads are frightening to use, especially with children. HG4 can support safer footpaths, better crossings, and a layout that puts people — not cars — at the centre of the village. This is urgently needed and entirely consistent with planning priorities around safety and accessibility.
Community Life: Hurst Green lacks any real gathering places. HG4 could provide proper green space, seating, play areas, an adult gym and social spots that other villages take for granted. These are the foundations of wellbeing and community identity, which planning policy encourages but small sites cannot deliver.
Housing Choice: There are hardly any homes in the village for young families or for older people wanting to downsize near their loved ones. HG4 can provide a real mix of homes, keeping families together and helping the village grow in a balanced way — something the Local Plan framework calls for.
From what I’ve seen, the smaller allocated sites struggle to come forward or offer almost nothing back to the community. HG4 is different: it is deliverable, it sits naturally beside the village boundary, and it can actually fund the improvements that local people have been asking for for years.

If HG4 goes ahead, I hope it includes: safe pavements for prams and older people, traffic calming near Coopers Corner, proper green and community areas (not leftover patches), and smaller, accessible homes for those of us who want to be closer to family.

As a grandmother who wants her family to grow up in a safe, sociable and thriving place, I believe HG4 is a genuine opportunity for Hurst Green’s future. It would give the village the safety, community and sense of belonging it has been missing for far too long.

Thank you for reading my views.

Regulation 18 Submission (Additional Evidence)
In Support of HG4 – Land at The Lodge, Hurst Green
Submitted by: Landowners of HG4 – Land at The Lodge
Plan period: Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 (Regulation 18: Development Strategy & Site Allocations)
Date: March 2026
1) Executive summary and headline conclusion
Hurst Green faces three intertwined planning harms: (i) A21 severance and pedestrian danger; (ii) the absence of a central, inclusive green and social infrastructure; and (iii) unmet needs for a balanced and affordable housing mix. HG4 is uniquely capable of addressing all three in a landscape‑led, pedestrian‑first scheme that aligns with the adopted National Planning Policy Framework and the made Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan (2021–2028), and that directly supports the draft Rother Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2026) approach in a district that is 83% within the High Weald National Landscape. Retaining HG4 in the Local Plan improves the plan’s effectiveness and consistency with national policy, strengthens delivery of locally‑endorsed design principles, and maximises net community benefit for Hurst Green.
New since the previous draft:
• National Highways’ A21 Safety Package is actively delivering and has programmed works through mid‑2026 in Hurst Green (signals/crossing, widened footways, resurfacing), providing fixed interventions that HG4 will connect to with step‑free links. Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/
• Government has published the draft Road Investment Strategy 3 (RIS3), funding from April 2026 to March 2031, with final RIS due by March 2026; this strengthens the deliverability context for complementary village‑side measures that amplify corridor safety benefits. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-road-investment-strategy-3-ris3
• The HG4 landholding already includes an on‑site lake; the proposal is to retain and enhance it as part of the green/blue network and to meet/exceed mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) (≥10%) through habitat enhancement and creation around the lake and connected greenways. BNG guidance available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain
2) Plan‑making context and policy weight
Rother Local Plan (Reg.18) status. The Development Strategy & Site Allocations consultation is open until 23 March 2026, provides for 8,427 homes to 2042, and emphasises the need to make difficult choices given the district’s landscape constraints. Within this, HG4 is a proposed Hurst Green allocation and has attracted supportive representations citing strong sustainability performance and the viability of meaningful on‑site affordable housing at scale. Available at: https://www.rother.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/emerging-local-plan/local-plan-review/ ; https://rother.oc2.uk/readdoc/184/searchrepresentations/8834
AONB → National Landscapes (HWNL). Renaming AONBs as National Landscapes does not change protection; great weight remains on conserving and enhancing natural beauty. Rother’s Reg.18 text (paras 6.2–6.6) underlines a landscape‑led approach to development in the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL). Available at: https://www.tandridge.gov.uk/Planning-and-building/Natural-environment-and-heritage/National-Landscapes ; https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14454/Appendix%20A%20-%20New%20Local%20Plan_Reg%2018_version_2026_Cabinet%20version%20showing%20changes.pdf
National policy (NPPF). The NPPF (December 2024; amended 7 February 2025) is current and emphasises healthy and safe communities, sustainable transport, well‑designed places, and conserving and enhancing National Landscapes; the February 2025 amendment corrected cross‑references without altering policy substance. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
Neighbourhood Plan (made). The Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan (2021–2028) was made on 15 December 2025 after a 177–34 referendum, and is now part of the Development Plan — including policies for a Green Village Hub, sports/leisure, design, and dark skies that HG4 can help implement. Available at: https://www.rother.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/neighbourhood-plans-in-preparation/hurst-green-neighbourhood-plan/ ; https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf
RIS3 material consideration. The draft RIS3 sets the SRN funding/priority framework for April 2026–March 2031, with a final version due by March 2026. Its emphasis on safety, maintenance/renewals, and environmental responsibility supports continued corridor improvements on high‑risk routes — relevant to the A21. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-road-investment-strategy-3-ris3
3) Evidence‑led needs and the specific harms HG4 can fix
A) A21 severance, speed and pedestrian danger
Local parish analyses and testimonies show excessive speeds and severance, with daily safety concerns around school access: see Hurst Green NP evidence pages. Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/infrastructure/ ; https://hurstgreen2030.uk/the-vision/
Quantified local speed evidence. Parish analysis by Cllr Andrew Brown using National Highways average speed datasets shows persistent over‑limit speeds through Hurst Green across the 24‑hour cycle, with pronounced night‑time exceedances, evidencing the community’s concerns about severance and pedestrian risk. Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HGNP-Analysis-of-Highways-England-Average-Speed-Data-v06.pdf ; https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Evidence-44-Analysis-of-2021-Speed-Data-through-Hurst-Green_v7.pdf
Current delivery window (extended implementation). National Highways’ A21 Safety Package shows active works in Hurst Green into mid‑2026 (signals and a pedestrian crossing at Station Road/London Road; islands; widened footways; resurfacing including closures between Coopers Corner and Northbridge Street) — providing fixed, funded nodes for HG4 to connect to with step‑free desire‑line links. In 2024, National Highways made multiple approaches to the HG4 landowners to secure access for pre‑construction surveys, underlining the live status of scheme preparation in this location and the practical opportunity for HG4 to integrate with the safety infrastructure as it is delivered. Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/
The local speed analyses provide an empirical baseline against which the A21 safety interventions (signals/crossings/footway widening) and HG4’s step‑free links can reasonably be expected to reduce exposure to speeding traffic and severance, especially for school and short intra‑village trips. Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HGNP-Analysis-of-Highways-England-Average-Speed-Data-v06.pdf ; https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Evidence-44-Analysis-of-2021-Speed-Data-through-Hurst-Green_v7.pdf
B) Lack of a central, inclusive green and social infrastructure
Community evidence and the Neighbourhood Plan identify the absence of a central green and inclusive facilities (including youth/sport provision) as a key factor undermining village life. HG4’s centrality and scale can implement the Green Village Hub brief and deliver multi‑generational spaces. Available at: https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf
C) Housing mix, affordability and ageing
Rother’s Reg.18 text highlights significant need for affordable housing, specialist/older persons’ provision, and a full range of dwelling sizes. HG4’s quantum enables meaningful on‑site affordable delivery at a scale attractive to Registered Providers, plus a balanced mix in a walkable location. Available at: https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14454/Appendix%20A%20-%20New%20Local%20Plan_Reg%2018_version_2026_Cabinet%20version%20showing%20changes.pdf ; representation example: https://rother.oc2.uk/readdoc/184/searchrepresentations/8834
4) The HG4 proposition — how it directly addresses the harms
1. Safe everyday movement (A21). HG4’s internal network aligns to the new signals/crossing and footway improvements at Station Road/London Road and to the resurfacing/islands programmed between Flimwell and Coopers Corner, converting corridor‑level safety upgrades into safe, step‑free daily routes to school, shops and bus stops. Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/ ; local coverage: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sevenoaks/news/safety-works-underway-on-major-route-with-significant-level-331249/
2. Create the missing central heart. The masterplan delivers a central green framed by flexible community space, small‑format retail/health, and play/leisure, directly implementing the made NP’s HG13/HG14 and providing natural surveillance away from the A21 edge. Available at: https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf
3. The right homes in the right place. HG4’s scale enables c.40% affordable (as supported in Reg.18 representations) and a mix that includes downsizers, family homes and older persons’ accommodation, consistent with Reg.18 needs. Available at: https://rother.oc2.uk/readdoc/184/searchrepresentations/8834 ; https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14454/Appendix%20A%20-%20New%20Local%20Plan_Reg%2018_version_2026_Cabinet%20version%20showing%20changes.pdf
5) RIS3 (2026–2031) — why it matters to HG4 and Coopers Corner
Government has published the draft Road Investment Strategy 3, setting the SRN framework for April 2026–March 2031, with a final version due by March 2026. RIS3’s focus on safety, maintenance/renewals, and environmental responsibility supports continued corridor improvements and targeted junction packages on high‑risk routes such as the A21. HG4’s village‑side delivery (paths, crossings, 20mph streets, micromobility parking) is the low‑cost/high‑benefit complement that ensures Coopers Corner/Flimwell measures generate everyday pedestrian benefit. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-road-investment-strategy-3-ris3
6) Nature‑led design, the existing lake and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
Existing HG4 lake retained and enhanced. The HG4 landholding includes an existing lake that will be kept as the centrepiece of a green/blue network: wetland fringe enhancement, native planting, pollinator corridors, and accessible edge treatments that double as informal learning/play. (Applicant commitment).
Mandatory BNG (≥10%) and long‑term management. HG4 will meet (and aims to exceed) mandatory BNG using the statutory metric, secured by a Biodiversity Gain Plan and a 30‑year management commitment; on‑site delivery focused around the lake/greenways will reduce reliance on off‑site credits. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain
BNG – Heads of Terms (summary)
Statutory framework & metric Environment Act 2021; Schedule 7A TCPA 1990; Statutory Biodiversity Metric (current version at application).
Baseline date To be fixed at application validation; pre‑commencement Biodiversity Gain Plan to be approved.
On‑site habitats (principle) Lake and wetland margins, species‑rich grassland, native hedgerows/trees, pollinator corridors and SuDS features with biodiversity function.
Target net gain ≥10% BNG (aiming to exceed where feasible) with habitat creation/enhancement plan and monitoring schedule.
Securing mechanism Planning condition for Biodiversity Gain Plan + s106 obligation/conservation covenant for 30‑year management and reporting.
Monitoring & reporting Five‑yearly reporting to LPA; adaptive management triggers if performance falls below target trajectories.






7) Policy compliance — national to neighbourhood
NPPF (Dec 2024 / Feb 2025). Healthy/safe communities, sustainable transport, well‑designed places, and great weight to conserving/enhancing National Landscapes: HG4’s A21 tie‑ins, central green and landscape‑led pattern satisfy these policy aims. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
Rother Reg.18 (2026). Housing requirement of 8,427, significant needs for affordable/older persons housing, and an explicit High Weald emphasis (paras 6.2–6.6): HG4 helps deliver these outcomes in a sensitive, central location. Available at: https://www.rother.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/emerging-local-plan/local-plan-review/ ; https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14454/Appendix%20A%20-%20New%20Local%20Plan_Reg%2018_version_2026_Cabinet%20version%20showing%20changes.pdf
Hurst Green NP (made, Dec 2025). HG13/HG14 (Green Village Hub; Sports & Leisure), HG4/5 (character/design), HG8 (dark skies): HG4 is the natural mechanism to implement these local policies and deliver a coherent village heart. Available at: https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf
High Weald National Landscape guidance. Housing Design Guide (2019) and Dark Skies advice (2024–): HG4’s character, grain and lighting approach are aligned. Guidance hub available at: https://highweald.org/guidance/ ; Wealden DC summary: https://www.wealden.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/high-weald-area-of-outstanding-natural-beauty/
8) Learning from appeal decisions and local experience
The Foundry Close decision is instructive: the Inspector criticised suburbanised layouts, extensive shared surfaces and surface‑parking dominance. HG4’s design codes will avoid these pitfalls by using human‑scaled blocks/streets, practical on‑plot/courtyard parking and legible footways. Available at: https://www.richboroughestates.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1924a.pdf
9) Deliverability and infrastructure alignment
A21 synchronisation (2026). Works at Station Road/London Road and along the Flimwell–Coopers Corner stretch are underway/continuing into mid‑2026, enabling HG4 to connect early to new crossings, signals and widened footways. During 2024, National Highways contacted the HG4 landowners several times to arrange access for pre‑construction surveys, evidencing scheme progress on the ground and readiness for village‑side tie‑ins. Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/
Evidence‑led justification. The 2018 and 2021 speed studies for Hurst Green provide a robust before‑intervention dataset that supports monitoring the post‑scheme benefits of both National Highways’ works and HG4’s connections. Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HGNP-Analysis-of-Highways-England-Average-Speed-Data-v06.pdf ; https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Evidence-44-Analysis-of-2021-Speed-Data-through-Hurst-Green_v7.pdf
Funding horizon. RIS3 provides the 2026–31 funding envelope; final RIS due by March 2026. HG4’s village‑side measures are modestly costed and can be taken forward in lockstep with corridor safety and renewals programmes. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-road-investment-strategy-3-ris3 ; context: https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/news/dft/government-confirms-level-plans-25bn-ris
10) Why this quantum here — enabling the NP hub and meaningful affordable housing
HG4’s proposed quantum provides the critical mass to: (i) deliver the Green Village Hub (flexible community floorspace, inclusive play/leisure, and the central green) without reliance on scarce off‑site land; and (ii) secure a meaningful on‑site affordable housing package that is viable and attractive to Registered Providers. This is reflected in Reg.18 representations highlighting that around 40% affordable at HG4’s scale creates a deliverable package for RPs and supports grant viability. Available at: https://rother.oc2.uk/readdoc/184/searchrepresentations/8834 ; NP policy context: https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf
11) Monitoring and evaluation commitment
The applicant commits to a proportionate monitoring framework to track outcomes post‑occupation: (a) pedestrian counts across the new desire‑line links; (b) periodic community safety feedback; and (c) review of available National Highways speed datasets for the Hurst Green frontage to compare against the 2018/2021 baselines. Findings will inform any adaptive measures through the Travel Plan and site management. Available at baseline reports: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HGNP-Analysis-of-Highways-England-Average-Speed-Data-v06.pdf ; https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Evidence-44-Analysis-of-2021-Speed-Data-through-Hurst-Green_v7.pdf
12) Synthesis — why HG4 must remain in the Local Plan
• Direct harm‑reduction: HG4 converts the A21 safety package (and forthcoming RIS3 context) into everyday safe mobility, by tying the site network to new crossings/signals and delivering 20mph, continuous‑footway streets. Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/ ; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-road-investment-strategy-3-ris3
• Place‑making at the heart: HG4 creates the missing central green and inclusive facilities cluster envisaged by the made Neighbourhood Plan, avoiding suburban forms rejected at appeal. Available at: https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf ; https://www.richboroughestates.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1924a.pdf
• Meeting the right needs: HG4 delivers meaningful affordable housing and a balanced mix in a walkable location. Available at: https://www.rother.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/emerging-local-plan/local-plan-review/ ; https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14454/Appendix%20A%20-%20New%20Local%20Plan_Reg%2018_version_2026_Cabinet%20version%20showing%20changes.pdf
• Policy‑consistent in a sensitive landscape: Landscape‑led design consistent with NPPF and High Weald guidance ensures development is appropriate within the National Landscape. Guidance hub: https://highweald.org/guidance/ ; NPPF: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
Figure 1: Indicative pedestrian tie‑ins to the A21 safety works (schematic – not to scale)
• Station Road/London Road junction (new signals + pedestrian crossing) ⇄ HG4 main east–west greenway (step‑free)
• Widened footways/islands on A21 corridor ⇄ HG4 northern edge connections (continuous footways with raised tables at internal junctions)
• Coopers Corner stretch (surfacing/islands) ⇄ HG4 southern link (wayfinding to village centre and hub)
Source context: National Highways A21 Safety Package page (Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/)
Evidence Compendium — verbatim extracts with source addresses
A) Safety, Severance and Traffic Conditions
Parish councillor (Aug 2018):
“Official figures show that Sussex Police did not carry out any speed enforcement in the parish of Hurst Green during 2018, however analysis of Highways England Average Speed Data collected from sensors located in Hurst Green over the whole of 2018 shows there is an issue with excessive speeding 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that many fixed penalty notices would be issued if the cancelled average speed camera scheme was actually in place.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Infrastructure (August 2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/infrastructure/
Hurst Green School Headteacher (Nov 2018):
“As a school community, we have very real concerns about the safety of our pupils every single day. Cars, vans and lorries including large HGVs often speed through Hurst Green. Parents have no choice but to park on the A21 to drop off and pick up their children as there is a lack of parking in the village. The walk to school from other parts of the village is along a narrow pavement which is often blocked.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – The Vision (November 2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/the-vision/
Local Resident (2018 Resident survey):
“If Hurst Green gets more houses, as a village are going to struggle with the amount of traffic – it’s already a danger, there has been so many accidents, it will just get worse and it will also make the lack of parking worse.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – The Vision (2018 Resident survey). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/the-vision/
Local resident (2019):
“Due to volume of traffic constantly through village, residents are to afraid to walk anywhere, which unfortunately means decline in village life. The amenities and shops that used to provide a village feel have gone due to the road and the village has become a drive through.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Infrastructure (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/infrastructure/
Local resident (2018):
“There is no public transport to hospitals and nothing anywhere on a Sunday…”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Infrastructure (2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/infrastructure/
Bexhill and Battle MP (Dec 2018):
“Time after time, Hurst Green has been promised substantial safety measures by Highways England to protect the residents from this dangerous road. However, years of proposals and scoping studies carried out by Highways England have delivered only minor measures which do not protect the community….”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Infrastructure (December 2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/infrastructure/
Cllr Andrew Brown (2018 dataset; published 2020):
“Analysis of Highways England Average Speed Data … shows persistently elevated average speeds across multiple 15‑minute reporting blocks, including overnight periods.”
Source location: Hurst Green NP Evidence (v6). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HGNP-Analysis-of-Highways-England-Average-Speed-Data-v06.pdf
Cllr Andrew Brown (2021 dataset; report 2023):
“All‑day distributions indicate sustained exceedances of the posted limits, with implications for noise, injury severity and community severance.”
Source location: Hurst Green NP Evidence (v7). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Evidence-44-Analysis-of-2021-Speed-Data-through-Hurst-Green_v7.pdf
B) Design Quality, AONB Expectations and Appeal Learning
High Weald Joint Advisory Committee – Design Guidance:
“Housing development within the High Weald is necessary and desirable in creating a thriving and successful place, but it is also a responsibility and privilege to make long-lasting interventions in such a special and protected landscape. Past development has shown how this special opportunity has often been squandered on generic housing developments failing to capitalise on the true character of the place…”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing documents (High Weald Housing Design Guide extract). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-documents/
Planning Inspector – Land at Foundry Close (Appeal):
“…the layout proposed would result in one that does not entirely reflect the prevailing pattern of development within the locality… the appeal scheme appears as a suburban development with surface car park areas and small blocks of flats for example…”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing documents (Appeal decision). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-documents/
Planning Inspector – Land at Foundry Close (Appeal):
“sufficient practical parking provision should be provided in the first instance…”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing documents (Appeal decision). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-documents/
C) Housing Mix, Affordability and Parking Expectations
2019 Parish Council housing survey (217 households):
“28% said that the Hurst Green area was not their preferred place to live, citing limited facilities, road noise and it being difficult to meet people and make friends.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – The Vision (2019 Parish Council housing survey results). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/the-vision/
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“Expanding families require extra bedrooms which are in short supply in Hurst Green… where are the 3, 4, 5 bedroom houses?”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing & the Environment (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-and-the-environment/
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“Any new houses need plenty of parking, i.e. 3 bedrooms equals 3 spaces!”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing & the Environment (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-and-the-environment/
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“Don’t build properties that will have maintenance problems in the future, e.g. massive entrance archways!”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing & the Environment (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-and-the-environment/
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“Whilst young people need to get started, families also expand and want to stay in the village so please include a fair share of good quality 3, 4, 5 bedroom houses.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Housing & the Environment (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/housing-and-the-environment/
D) Village Facilities, Public Realm and Local Economy
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“There’s insufficient parking in the village to access local shops on Station Road and on the A21.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Business, Economy & Tourism Objectives (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/business-economy-and-tourism-objectives/
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“Hurst Green needs more facilities and amenities to attract residents and reduce travel to other places such as shops and doctors.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Business, Economy & Tourism Objectives (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/business-economy-and-tourism-objectives/
Local Resident (Community survey 2019):
“We think this is a great initiative, an excellent opportunity to be forward thinking and positive.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Aims (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/aims/
E) Sport, Play, Open Space and Nature
Local Resident (Community event 2018):
“sadly there’s no proper football pitch in the village so the various Hurst Green teams have to use those at Lamberhurst fields and Vinehall school.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Sport & Leisure (2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/sport-and-leisure/
Local Resident (Community event 2018):
“what we need is a big recreation area with a football pitch, a place to ride bikes/skateboards, an outdoor gym, a basketball hoop and an area there where you can take dogs so that you can be with the children while they play or exercise.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Sport & Leisure / Drewetts Sports Ground (2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/community-project-drewitts-sports-ground/
Local Resident (Community event 2019):
“…areas such as cricket field should be a communal centre for village – but it needs improved access, lighting and facilities for young and old.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Sport & Leisure (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/sport-and-leisure/
Local Resident (Resident survey 2019):
“all Hurst Green has is a poorly maintained play area, with vandalism, drinking, drug taking and lots of rubbish in the park.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Sport & Leisure (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/sport-and-leisure/
Local Resident (Community project – Silverhill, 2019):
“Would be great to have somewhere local other than the woods to walk the dog.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Community Project: Silverhill (2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/community-project-silverhill/
Local Resident (Community project – Silverhill, 2018):
“We need more accessible green spaces, we’re surrounded by fields, but they are all in private ownership.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Community Project: Silverhill (2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/community-project-silverhill/
F) Public Transport and Access
Local Resident (Community survey 2018): “There is no public transport to hospitals and nothing anywhere on a Sunday…”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Infrastructure (2018). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/infrastructure/
G) Civic and Government Statements
Government Housing Minister (May 2019): “Supporting volunteers who are passionate about building more of the homes we need in their communities is something I’m fully behind… This funding is on top of the £26 million already available to help get neighbourhood plans over the line.”
Source location: Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan site – Funding (May 2019). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/funding/
References (policy & delivery) — with written web addresses
- National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024; amended 7 February 2025). Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
- Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 (Reg.18) consultation hub (open until 23 March 2026). Available at: https://www.rother.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/emerging-local-plan/local-plan-review/
- Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy & Site Allocations (Jan 2026 Cabinet version, including HWNL paragraphs 6.2–6.6). Available at: https://rother.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14454/Appendix%20A%20-%20New%20Local%20Plan_Reg%2018_version_2026_Cabinet%20version%20showing%20changes.pdf
- Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan (2021–2028) – made 15 December 2025; referendum 20 November 2025. Available at: https://www.rother.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/neighbourhood-plans-in-preparation/hurst-green-neighbourhood-plan/
- Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan – Referendum Version PDF (Dec 2025). Available at: https://rdcpublic.blob.core.windows.net/website-uploads/2025/12/Hurst_Green_Neighbourhood_Plan_-_ReferendumVersion_2025.pdf
- High Weald National Landscape – Guidance hub (Design Guide; Dark Skies; Management Plan). Available at: https://highweald.org/guidance/
- Wealden DC – High Weald National Landscape page (Management Plan 2024–29; Dark Skies). Available at: https://www.wealden.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/high-weald-area-of-outstanding-natural-beauty/
- National Highways – A21 Safety Package (Hurst Green updates into 2026). Available at: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/
- KentOnline (16 Oct 2025) – Coopers Corner closures/resurfacing coverage. Available at: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sevenoaks/news/safety-works-underway-on-major-route-with-significant-level-331249/
- Department for Transport – Draft Road Investment Strategy 3 (RIS3) 2026–31 (26 Aug 2025). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-road-investment-strategy-3-ris3
- Highways Magazine – Government confirms top‑level plans for £25bn RIS3 (26 Aug 2025). Available at: https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/news/dft/government-confirms-level-plans-25bn-ris
- Biodiversity Net Gain – GOV.UK Planning Practice Guidance (updated 1 May 2024). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain
- Foundry Close Appeal Decision (24 Oct 2017) – Richborough. Available at: https://www.richboroughestates.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1924a.pdf
- Cllr Andrew Brown – Analysis of Highways England Average Speed Data (2018 dataset; v6, published 2020). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HGNP-Analysis-of-Highways-England-Average-Speed-Data-v06.pdf
- Cllr Andrew Brown – Analysis of 2021 Speed Data Through Hurst Green (report 2023; v7). Available at: https://hurstgreen2030.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Evidence-44-Analysis-of-2021-Speed-Data-through-Hurst-Green_v7.pdf

I’m 15 and my family hopes to move to Hurst Green. One of the main things that matter to me is having a school I can get to safely without really long or difficult journeys. Right now, young people in this part of Rother often have to travel far for secondary school, and the routes aren’t always safe or easy to walk or cycle.
If HG4 goes ahead, it would bring more families into the village and help create the numbers and investment that make better education options more realistic in the future. Even if a new secondary school doesn’t happen straight away, HG4 would still make a huge difference by improving walking routes, village pathways and safety around the A21 — things that really affect people my age.
That’s why I support the Local Plan for Hurst Green. It would help create a safer, better‑connected village.

I’m in my twenties and hope to start a family in a village with real prospects. Rother District needs to plan for over 8,000 new homes by 2042 due to increased housing requirements, meaning growth must be directed to places that support sustainable living and good infrastructure. Evidence in the Draft Local Plan shows a significant need for affordable homes and suitable first‑time‑buyer properties, the type young households depend on. Hurst Green already has strong foundations - a rail station within walking distance and access to services. Larger, coordinated sites in the Local Plan, such as the draft HG4 allocation, can deliver meaningful affordable housing at a scale smaller sites cannot. One representation notes that around 40% affordable housing and safer access to the A21 are achievable on HG4, alongside good connectivity and no flooding constraints.
For people my age, this kind of planned growth is what makes it possible

I basically think that too many houses are being considered for Hurst Green.
HG3 and HG4 are greenfield sites, Brownfield sites should be considered first.
There is no discussion of extending the infrastructure (including water supplies and drainage) to cope with the new housing.

HG3 - the number of houses should be reduced and more parking provided as central Hurst Green is lacking in parking spaces.
Affordable housing provision should be reserved for those with a local connection
HG4 I object to this allocation which will lead to urban sprawl.This site in 2020 was dismissed by Rother District Council's unsuitable for development,.

Hurst Green is a beautiful village in an area of outstanding natural beauty. We are lucky to be in a dark skies area too. I object to the proposed sites of HG4 and HG3.
HG4 is a huge green site that simply should be left as green. The village infrastructure would not be able to take on such a big development. We already have issues with traffic and pollution this would increase significantly if this were to go ahead. There must be some brown sites that could be used instead for housing if it is necessary to put more housing upon the village. The village amenities are already so limited, local Dr's surgeries are already at capacity and incredibly hard to secure appointments when needed. The school is a small village school that could potentially not take on that level of increase in pupil numbers.
I also object to HG3 which is right near our beautiful green cricket field. The access road is not suitable to take more traffic and again it is taking more of our green sites away.

I would welcome building new houses in the village when a by pass has been built. Without a by pass the village is dying all the new developements use direct access onto the A21, with every house built you have two cars and four journeys each day directly onto the A21. There are no basic facilities in the village, No Doctors, no chemist, no post office and only one small food shop. I understand the Pub in the centre of the village is closing except for Saturday and Sunday. If a by pass is done the village could thrive and people would want to live in Hurst green. The only sports field is a cricket pitch and no parking in the village. I do not understand why you would put a village green on the outskirts of the village. This village could be vibrant after the bypass is built.

Sites HG1 and HG2 are agreed sites in the original neighborhood plan and I have no concerns about them. However I object to sites HG3 and HG4 for the following reasons. We are in an area of outstanding natural beauty and a dark skies area. An extra 200 houses in this small rural village on the busy A21 where there are few amenities is ridiculous. They're are no health services in the village and the nearest ones are already flooded with the extra homes built in their areas. The traffic is already bad, especially with the Highways new works going on. The school isn't big enough for the potential amount of extra children. In short, Hurst Green can just about support itself with the current number of residents, let alone an extra 400 potential ones. Not too mention that these two sites were never agreed on the original local plan.