Objection to FW1 Land behind Fruitfields.
This greenfield site is bordered by. environmentally important Ancient Woodland and has abundant wildlife including rare bat species. The site is known to get very waterlogged and any development will inevitably cause contamination to the ghyll system, which is home to numerous rare plant species.
The environmental impact that development on this site would have goes against everything that the High Weald National Landscape is about. This site should be allowed to stay untouched as it has for hundreds of years.
Access to the site is on a stretch of road with limited visibility and would therefore be hazardous at best.
There is insufficient local infrastructure, including schools, medical facilities, public transport to support more development and there are also other sites locally that would cause less environmental impact than this site.

The proposed site (FW1) will bring a lot of extra traffic to the street. Union/high street already has a high volume of traffic going through at what should be 30mph but cars go through at such high speeds. More traffic pulling out onto the road is potentially dangerous.
The build site will also cause a lot of disruption to the ancient woodland area disturbing the animals that inhabit the woods.

I object to the proposed allocation of Site FW1 at Flimwell.
The site lies adjacent to ancient woodland at Wardsdown Wood, an irreplaceable habitat protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. Development here would result in unacceptable indirect impacts, including recreational pressure, lighting, and hydrological change. No wholly exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify such harm.
The site is also within the High Weald AONB, where great weight must be given to conserving landscape character. The proposal would erode the rural, woodland-edge setting and extend development beyond the established settlement boundary in an unsustainable form.
Furthermore, the allocation conflicts with local and neighbourhood plan objectives and is inconsistent with previous refusals in this location.
For these reasons, Site FW1 should not be included in the Local Plan.

I am selecting ‘Object’ because the grouped question combines several sites with differing merits. As set out in my full written submission of 22 March 2026, I support 3 sites (within your FW2) subject to specific provisos, but I strongly object to Site 4 (FW1) due to ancient woodland encroachment, drainage constraints, and contamination concerns. My detailed reasoning is provided in my email of 22.03.2026 Please read it!

We object to the proposed allocation of Site FW1 at Flimwell.

The site lies adjacent to ancient woodland at Wardsdown Wood, an irreplaceable habitat protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. Development here would result in unacceptable indirect impacts, including recreational pressure, lighting, and hydrological change. No wholly exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify such harm.

The site is also within the High Weald AONB, where great weight must be given to conserving landscape character. The proposal would erode the rural, woodland-edge setting and extend development beyond the established settlement boundary in an unsustainable form.

Furthermore, the allocation conflicts with local and neighbourhood plan objectives and is inconsistent with previous refusals in this location.

For these reasons, Site FW1 should not be included in the Local Plan.

I wish to raise my concerns and objections to proposed site FW1.
FW1 is in the High Weald Area of National Landscape (formerly known as AONB) and is on land which forms part of and/or abuts Ancient Woodland (which local residents have worked hard to protect) and to the West, is a right of way used by hundreds of walkers (both local and from farther afield) to access the Ancient Woodland and Bewl Water beyond. To the East of the Development is woodland and other green space.

The area has a significant population of wildlife, birds, rabbits, deer, newts, snakes etc. It is a nesting site for birds and bats. It is a quiet and peaceful area of natural beauty and should be protected and preserved. Indeed, Rother itself described the Ancient Woodland in the Ancient Woodland Inventory as ‘irreplaceable habitat of ecological value for nature recovery, carbon sequestration and cultural landscape’

The Development will damage the amenity of this important area and impact on the eco system and as its greenfield land it should not be allocated for development.

Flimwell itself does not have the infrastructure to support more houses - there is no doctors surgery, (the nearest being in Wadhurst or Hawkhurst both several miles away), shop or school. The bus service is poor and there are no footpaths that fully run towards the nearest villages of Ticehurst and Hawkhurst.

I also have concerns re:additional traffic - since the Corner Farm and Old Wardsdown developments there are often huge ques at the traffic lights joining the A21 and a proposed development of 35 houses could easily add 60+ cars to the B2087, how this development would join the B2087, and how a vehicle road would safely run alongside the pre existing public walk right of way to the woods.

It will create a small number of additional houses whilst causing significant, permanent environmental and cultural damage and negative impact for those surrounding the Development and the wider Flimwell population.

I object to the proposed allocation of Site FW1 at Flimwell.

The site lies adjacent to ancient woodland at Wardsdown Wood, an irreplaceable habitat protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. Development here would result in unacceptable indirect impacts, including recreational pressure, lighting, and hydrological change. No wholly exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify such harm.

The site is also within the High Weald AONB, where great weight must be given to conserving landscape character. The proposal would erode the rural, woodland-edge setting and extend development beyond the established settlement boundary in an unsustainable form.

Furthermore, the allocation conflicts with local and neighbourhood plan objectives and is inconsistent with previous refusals in this location.

For these reasons, Site FW1 should not be included in the Local Plan.

I object to the proposed allocation of 35 dwellings at Wardsdown House under reference FW1. The development conflicts with the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan, threatens highly sensitive ancient woodland and protected species, lacks safe access, and represents unsustainable expansion into the High Weald AONB. It should be removed from the Development Plan.

1. In Conflict with the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan
The Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan (TNP)—developed by the Steering Group and approved by public referendum—allocated this site for a maximum of 9 dwellings, and explicitly stated the Parish would not support a larger scheme.
The current proposal for 35 dwellings overturns the democratically mandated limit and introduces an unapproved eastward site extension that was never consulted on or included in the referendum.
This is contrary to the Local Planning Authority’s duty to give weight to an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

2. Significant Ecological Harm to the Ghyll System and River Bewl
The southern ghyll system is an exceptionally sensitive ecological feature forming part of the boundary between East Sussex and Kent. It is recognised by the Woodland Trust and monitored by the Kent Botanical Society for its rare sphagnum bogs, specialist mosses and water‑dependent plant species.

The site’s steep topography guarantees that construction-phase run‑off will enter this ghyll system, causing siltation, chemical pollutants
disruption to hydrology, irreversible loss of rare bog and moss communities.

Pollution would continue after occupation through hard‑surface run‑off. The ecological damage from development on this landform cannot be mitigated.

3. Protected Bat Species Across the Entire Site
The whole site is used by Noctule and Natterer’s bats, both protected and highly sensitive to woodland-edge disturbance. They roost in Wardsdown Woodland and forage across the entire 2.3‑hectare site. A development of this scale would break established foraging routes, increase artificial lighting, fragment habitat connectivity, increase risk of predation and displacement.

Legally protected species are a material planning consideration. The proposal fails to satisfy biodiversity duties under UK law.

4. Woodland Ownership, Access Rights and Inflexible Track Configuration
The existing access track is fundamentally unsuitable for 35 dwellings. The southern section and public footpath are owned by Wardsdown Woodland (Title ESX133909). Rights granted are for forestry purposes, not for intensive residential use.

The track’s configuration cannot legally be altered, widened, or realigned. Thus, safe and suitable access cannot be achieved. This violates basic requirements of national planning policy.

5. Boundary Vegetation is Not Within the Development Site
The vegetation forming the west boundary—including trees and natural screening—is not owned by the developer. It belongs to the owners of the access track and Wardsdown Woodland. The developer cannot rely on this vegetation for landscape buffering, visual screening, ecological mitigation. Any assessment assuming these trees will remain is unsound.

6. Direct Conflict with Long-Term Woodland Restoration Work
Since 2019, the owners of Wardsdown Woodland—supported by the Woodland Trust and the High Weald National Landscape Partnership—have undertaken a multi‑year Ancient Woodland Restoration programme to remove invasive trees, increase biodiversity, restore native woodland structure, and support red‑list bird species. These works, partly funded by taxpayers, have significantly improved biodiversity.
Placing a large housing estate beside a restored ancient woodland would undermine public investment, reverse ecological gains, increase light, noise and human pressure on sensitive habitats.
This is inconsistent with the aims of the AONB designation and funded restoration strategy.

7. Long-standing Planning Precedent Against Development on This Site
Over six decades, planning applications for:
100 houses (1961)
10 houses (1970)
46 houses (refused and dismissed on appeal, 1973)
Demolition and access widening (1974)
Een 3 houses (1988)
have all been refused, consistently citing AONB harm, proximity to ancient woodland, landscape impact, and unsuitability for backland development in a small rural settlement.
No conditions have changed to justify overturning this long-established precedent. If anything, the ecological value of the site is now higher.

8. Lack of Local Facilities and Unsustainable Car Dependency
Flimwell has:
no GP surgery
no primary school
no day-to-day shops or amenities
no walkable community facilities
no safe walking or cycling routes
Residents rely almost entirely on private cars for daily needs. This is an inherently unsustainable location for major housing development.

9. Unsafe Highway Conditions and Traffic Impacts
The access track is narrow, partly shared with a public footpath and forestry vehicles. The surrounding rural roads and A21 junctions already experience:
high vehicle speeds
poor visibility
peak‑time congestion
accident risks

A 35‑home development would add an estimated 200–250 daily vehicle movements, significantly increasing safety risks on constrained rural roads. Because of legal ownership constraints, the access cannot be improved to an acceptable standard.

10. Inappropriate Expansion of the Settlement and AONB Harm
The proposal extends built development beyond long‑standing settlement boundaries into highly sensitive AONB landscape. It would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging future applications across open fields north of Fruitfields. mThis would erode landscape character and sever green corridors linking Wardsdown and Birch Woods.

I object to the proposed allocation of Site FW1 at Flimwell.

The site lies adjacent to ancient woodland at Wardsdown Wood, an irreplaceable habitat protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. Development here would result in unacceptable indirect impacts, including recreational pressure, lighting, and hydrological change. No wholly exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify such harm.

The site is also within the High Weald AONB, where great weight must be given to conserving landscape character. The proposal would erode the rural, woodland-edge setting and extend development beyond the established settlement boundary in an unsustainable form.

Furthermore, the allocation conflicts with local and neighbourhood plan objectives and is inconsistent with previous refusals in this location.

For these reasons, Site FW1 should not be included in the Local Plan.

I strongly oppose the allocation of FW1, beyond the 9 houses per the TNP with highways access via demolition of Wardsdown House, as it is an unsustainable, mitigation-dependent site that conflicts with the Local Plan strategy, harms the High Weald National Landscape, and would increase car dependency.
I oppose FW2 as currently proposed. The 114 dwellings scale is excessive, inappropriate density for Flimwell, lead to highway safety concerns on the A268, and insufficient provision for amenity space.
I am particularly concerned about FW2 north side of A268 which is highly visually intrusive, visible over long distances, harming the AONB, inevitable loss of dark skies, and increased noise and light pollution. FW2b is especially unsuitable given its distance from the settlement and a previous refusal in 2013 on similar grounds.
However, I would consider limited, low-density development at FW2 if it fully addresses landscape, safety, and amenity concerns.

I object to the proposed allocation of Site FW1 at Flimwell.

The site lies adjacent to ancient woodland at Wardsdown Wood, an irreplaceable habitat protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. Development here would result in unacceptable indirect impacts, including recreational pressure, lighting, and hydrological change. No wholly exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify such harm.

The site is also within the High Weald AONB, where great weight must be given to conserving landscape character. The proposal would erode the rural, woodland-edge setting and extend development beyond the established settlement boundary in an unsustainable form.

Furthermore, the allocation conflicts with local and neighbourhood plan objectives and is inconsistent with previous refusals in this location.

For these reasons, Site FW1 should not be included in the Local Plan.

Reference Site FW1.
I believe this site should be discounted from development on the following grounds. Our weather patterns are significantly changing, the land is frequently waterlogged given the run off from the ridge that Flimwell is built upon. Building on the fields will massively alter the hydrology of the natural environment, especially threatening the ancient woodland below the proposed site. At the very least a full hydrological survey should be commissioned prior to any decision being made. Equally the proposed development is likely to cause harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the AONB, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 172, which emphasizes the conservation and enhancement of AONBs.
The building proposal could lead to irreversible damage to the natural environment, flora, and fauna, which are protected under various local and national conservation laws.

Reference Site FW1.
The proposed site access track does not have an acceptable vision spey providing for safe access on to the B2087. It poses a significant potential road hazard. The access road would need to be at least as wide as the access road into Old Wardsdown – to achieve this the rental property owned by the landowners would likely need to be demolished – thereby depriving Flimwell of a vital ‘rental’ property. The B2087 has become increasingly busy and cars entering the village frequently do so significantly above the 30MPH speed limit. Traffic emerging from the proposed site do so in a dip and would not be visible to traffic on the B2087 and pose a real danger to vehicles and pedestrians.

Reference Site FW1.
The proposed site access is likely to pose a significant danger to traffic on the B2087. The site lines on the road can legitimately be obscured / blocked by parked vehicles on the B2087. The access road for the proposed site is in a slight dip meaning cars approaching from Ticehurst, at speeds well over the 30 MPH limit, will not be visible, nor will they see cars pulling out. It would be unacceptable to prevent local residents parking on the road, so the issue of dangerous site lines cannot be mitigated, ergo building a significant development on this site is likely to cause significant danger to local traffic and thus should not be considered further.

I strongly object to this proposal. The land behind Fruitfield is bordered by ancient Woodland which should be preserved at all costs. there is abundant wildlife including rare bats, deer and many bird species. The houses of Fruifields were designed with a channel underneath which allows water run-off from union Street to flow down to the fields at the back leaving them very waterlogged.
Access onto Union Street is hazardous as the road is very busy and fast moving.
There is no infrastructure in Flimwell to accommodate more houses, there is limited public transport links, no school or medical facilities. we live within a mile of Bewl Water
and yet have hose pipe bands every year which begs the question what would happen if more houses were built?
Whilst I understand some development is necessary I feel that perhaps the Cedar Farm site is more suitable.

My objections to the sites in Flimwell - FW1 - 35 dwellings , FW2a - 44 dwellings, FW2b - 70 dwellings. Flimwell cannot support another 149 dwellings due to lack of infrastructure capacity - schools, roads, water, drainage, doctors - these are struggling to cope with the current number of residents and cannot support more. There are also developments proposed at Ticehurst TC1 (54 dwellings) and TC2 (5 dwellings) which also impact Flimwell - again doctors & schools and an increase in traffic on the already busy and dangerous B2087.

FW1 is adjactent to ancient woodland which will suffer pollution from construction of the houses and will disrupt the habitats and biodiversity which has been improved due to the care of the current custodians of Wardsdown Wood and the Woodland Trust.

I appreciate that houses are needed but Flimwell is not a suitable site for such development.

Site FW1 - Flimwell
This site is not feasible.
It is an AONB that supports flora and fauna. The ground is very boggy in the winter due to the run off from the B2087. Building housing/roads would severely impact the Ancient Woodland on it's north side, which supports rare species.
Local infrastructure poor. Transport required for school, doctor, dentist, local shop.
Local track popular dog walking route. New access road required meaning a house and annexe being lost - 2 rental properties currently.
Visibility poor for access; parked vehicles, rise in road. Would join B2087, adding congestion to a very busy road during rush hour with long queues already backing up at the traffic lights on A21.
South bordering properties overlook the site, impacting resident's privacy, due to the lie of the land.

Formal Objection to Proposed Site Allocations FW1 and FW2 (Flimwell)

Introduction
I strongly object to the proposed site allocations FW1 and FW2 outlined in the Rother Local Plan 2025-2042. While I recognise the district-wide need for housing, a successful Local Plan must deliver sustainable, proportionate growth. The sheer scale of development proposed for Flimwell—a small rural settlement with highly restricted infrastructure—is disproportionate, unsustainable, and in direct conflict with national planning policies protecting designated landscapes.

My objection is rooted in four primary areas of concern:

1. Severe Harm to the High Weald National Landscape (AONB) and Local Biodiversity

- The proposed developments directly contravene the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifically paragraphs 189 and 190, which dictate that "great weight" must be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, and that "major development" should be refused except in exceptional circumstances.

- AONB Unit Objection: The High Weald AONB Unit has formally stated that these allocations would cause significant harm to the natural beauty of the landscape and render the Local Plan unsound. Furthermore, there have been no detailed Landscape Capacity Studies conducted to justify this allocation.

- Ecological Destruction: FW1 threatens a fragile ghyll system and tributaries of the River Bewl, monitored by the Kent Botanical Society and home to rare sphagnum bogs. Runoff and pollution from construction and occupation will devastate this ecosystem.

- Protected Species & Ancient Woodland: The sites border protected Ancient Woodland (such as Wardsdown Woodland, which recently underwent extensive, taxpayer-funded biodiversity restoration). The area is a critical habitat for rare bat species (including Noctule and Natterer's bats) and summer red-list birds. The proposed buffers are entirely inadequate to prevent fatal disruptions from light and noise pollution.

2. Democratic Deficit and Disproportionate Scale

- The scale of the proposed development would increase the village’s population by over 50%, fundamentally destroying its character and overriding established local consensus.

- Ignoring the Neighbourhood Plan: The adopted Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan explicitly assessed the FW1 site and concluded it was suitable for a maximum of 9 dwellings, restricted to the southern boundary. Allocating this site for 35 units flagrantly ignores the democratic process and the explicitly voted-upon wishes of the Parish.

- FW2 "Major Development": Proposing 114 dwellings on FW2 constitutes a massive, disproportionate expansion. Flimwell’s traditional ridge structure cannot absorb an estate of this magnitude without resorting to damaging ribbon development.

- Historical Precedent: There is a well-established history of planning refusals for these sites dating back to 1961, consistently rejected to protect the AONB and prevent backland development. Most recently, a Planning Inspectorate appeal for Cherry Tree Nursery (within FW2) was dismissed precisely because of harm to the High Weald AONB and its location outside the village development boundary.

3. Critical Infrastructure Deficits and Unsustainable Location

- Flimwell simply lacks the core infrastructure required to support a population increase of this magnitude, making it a highly unsustainable location for large-scale growth.

- Lack of Basic Amenities: The village has no GP surgery (with the nearby Ticehurst surgery closed and Wadhurst at capacity), no school, and virtually no retail shops.

- Utility Constraints: Southern Water has explicitly noted that FW2 has limited local network capacity and would require significant sewerage infrastructure phasing and network reinforcement. Furthermore, local water supplies are finite and already under pressure.

- Car Dependency: Because facilities cannot be reached safely by walking or cycling, and public transport is highly inadequate (one bus per hour), future residents will be overwhelmingly dependent on private cars. This directly conflicts with the Local Plan’s sustainability goals.

4. Traffic Congestion and Highway Safety Risks

- The local road network is already operating beyond safe capacity, and adding over 140 new households will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

- The A21/A268 Bottleneck: The traffic light junction at the Flimwell crossroads is a notorious bottleneck. Because the lights are timed to favour the A21 (managed by National Highways), traffic on the A268 regularly backs up, resulting in terrible local congestion and poor air quality (DAQI index 3).

- Pedestrian Danger: The local roads are narrow with "pitiful" to non-existent pavements. There are no safe pedestrian or cycle routes across the busy A21 and A268, creating severe safety hazards. Recent serious and fatal accidents in the immediate vicinity highlight the existing dangers, which will only multiply with increased vehicular volume and construction traffic.

Conclusion

While I support the provision of proportionate, affordable housing where local infrastructure allows, Flimwell is demonstrably the wrong location for developments of this scale. FW1 and FW2 violate the protections afforded to the High Weald National Landscape, ignore the adopted Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan, and propose placing hundreds of new residents in an area devoid of the necessary medical, educational, and transport infrastructure. I strongly urge the Council to remove these allocations from the Local Plan to prevent irreversible damage to our community and environment.

I object to the allocation of Sites FW1 and FW2 (Flimwell) in the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 on the grounds that:
• My land and residential amenity would be materially and directly affected by the development both sites FW1 & FW2
• The sites perform poorly against multiple Sustainability Appraisal (SA) objectives, particularly transport, flood risk, access to services and health infrastructure.
• The allocations would result in unsustainable levels of car dependency, increased highway risk, and cumulative traffic harm.
• There is a failure to demonstrate that surface water drainage and flood risk can be adequately mitigated, with potential adverse impacts on adjoining land, ancient woodlands and noted categorisation of our area as an AONB.
• The sites lack access to essential services, including public transport, healthcare and local amenities.
• The allocations are inconsistent with previous Local Plan evidence and outcomes for Northern Rother settlements.
The allocation of FW1 and FW2 is therefore unsound, unsustainable, and contrary to the Council’s own evidence base, including the Interim Sustainability Appraisal (January 2026).

Sustainability Appraisal Performance
The Interim Sustainability Appraisal (January 2026) identifies that Northern Rother sites such as Flimwell generally perform poorly when assessed against key SA objectives, including:
• SA5 – Flood risk and surface water management
• SA7 – Health and wellbeing
• SA9 – Accessibility to services and facilities
• SA10 – Safe and secure environments
• SA20 – Transport and travel choice
Both FW1 and FW2 attract negative or neutral scores in these areas, reflecting inherent locational constraints which cannot be resolved through mitigation alone. The decision to allocate these sites conflicts with the stated aim of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations.

Traffic, Transport and Highway Safety
Car Dependency and Traffic Generation
Flimwell is identified in the Sustainability Appraisal as a location with:
• Limited public transport provision
• Poor access to services by non-car modes
• High reliance on the private car
The allocation of FW1 and FW2 will therefore result in a significant increase in vehicle movements onto local roads and the A21 corridor, with no credible strategy for modal shift or traffic reduction.
Highway Safety and Accident Risk
The Local Plan does not adequately consider:
• Existing highway constraints in and around Flimwell but specially the already congested and consistent bottlenecks of the Flimwell / A21 cross roads / traffic lights.
• The cumulative impact of traffic growth & known road safety and accident concerns on local roads and junctions
This omission is particularly concerning given that SA20 explicitly includes road safety and accident reduction. Without a detailed, cumulative Transport Assessment (including accident data), the allocation of these sites is premature and unsafe.

Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk
The Sustainability Appraisal identifies surface water flooding as a significant issue across Rother, particularly in rural locations with limited drainage infrastructure.
For FW1 and FW2:
• Flood and surface water risk scores are negative
• No site-specific or area-wide drainage strategy is secured
• There is no demonstration that development would not increase flood risk elsewhere
As an adjoining landowner, I have serious concerns that additional impermeable surfaces and altered land levels will:
• Increase surface water runoff
• Exceed existing drainage capacity
• Adversely affect neighbouring land and downstream areas
This directly conflicts with SA Objective 5 and national policy requiring that development must not increase flood risk.

Lack of Key Services and Infrastructure
Public Transport
The Sustainability Appraisal confirms that Flimwell has limited or infrequent public transport, reinforcing car dependency and undermining sustainable development objectives.
Healthcare (GP Capacity)
The Health Impact Assessment recognises that population growth will increase demand for healthcare services. However:
• No additional GP or primary care capacity is identified for Flimwell, access is already extremely limited with Ticehurst Surgery closed and exceptionally limited capactity’s of Wadhurst.
• No delivery mechanism is secured through the Local Plan
Allocating FW1 and FW2 without confirmed healthcare provision is unsound.
Local Amenities
Flimwell lacks sufficient:
• Local retail provision
• Community facilities
• Walkable access to everyday services
New residents would be forced to travel outside the village for basic needs, contrary to SA objectives and the concept of sustainable communities.

Inconsistency with Previous Local Plan Evidence
Previous Local Plan iterations and HELAA assessments consistently identified Northern Rother villages as:
• Less sustainable locations for growth
• Constrained by infrastructure and accessibility limitations
There has been no material change in infrastructure capacity or service provision to justify the allocation of FW1 and FW2. Their inclusion represents a departure from earlier evidence-led conclusions without adequate justification.

Impact on Adjoining Land and Amenity
As an adjoining landowner, the proposed allocations would result in:
• Loss of rural character and outlook
• Increased noise, traffic and disturbance
• Heightened flood and drainage risk to neighbouring land
These impacts are not properly addressed or mitigated within the draft allocation policies.

Conclusion and Requested Modifications
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the Council:
1. Remove Sites FW1 and FW2 from the draft allocations, or
2. Defer their allocation unless and until:
o A full cumulative Transport Assessment (including accident data) is completed
o A robust, funded surface water and drainage strategy demonstrates no increased risk to adjoining land
o Healthcare, public transport and community infrastructure provision is secured and deliverable
o A transparent comparison with reasonable alternative sites is published using full SA scoring
Without these steps, the allocation of FW1 and FW2 is unsound, unsustainable, and inconsistent with the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal.

Supporting Evidence
• Interim Sustainability Appraisal – Draft Rother Local Plan (January 2026)
• Health Impact Assessment within the Sustainability Appraisal
• Sustainability Appraisal Framework Objectives 5, 7, 9, 10 and 20

I am writing to raise concerns regarding the potential housing development being proposed in the Flimwell area. While I appreciate the need for additional housing, there are several serious environmental and infrastructure issues that should be carefully considered before any approval is granted.
Firstly, the presence of Japanese knotweed within the proposed development area is a significant concern. This invasive species is well known for its ability to damage infrastructure and spread rapidly if not properly controlled. Development work in an affected area risks spreading the plant further unless strict management measures are enforced.
Secondly, the site is closely associated with areas of ancient forestry. Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat that supports biodiversity and plays an important role in maintaining ecological balance. Any loss or disturbance to such woodland would be extremely damaging and difficult to mitigate.
Another major concern is the potential pollution risk to the River Bewl. This river ultimately feeds Bewl Water, which is a vital reservoir serving a large population. Increased runoff, construction activity, and potential contaminants from new housing could negatively impact water quality if not carefully managed.
Traffic congestion is also a serious issue. The A21 and the connecting roads through Flimwell are already heavily used, and additional housing would likely increase traffic levels significantly. Without substantial improvements to local road infrastructure and traffic control measures, this could create safety concerns and further congestion for residents and commuters.
For these reasons, I urge the council to give careful consideration to the environmental sensitivity of this location, the risks to water resources, and the existing pressure on local transport infrastructure before allowing development to proceed.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. I hope they will be fully taken into account during the planning process.

Please confirm receipt of my observations, attached, regarding all 10 proposed sites within the above villages.

May I express my disappointment that the online consultation format did not allow respondents to comment on the merits of the individual sites. Several allocations with very different planning considerations were grouped together under single response boxes, forcing a single ‘support’ or ‘object’ choice for multiple unrelated proposals. This structure makes it impossible to give accurate, site‑specific feedback within the online form itself, which is why my full observations were submitted separately by email on 22 March 2026.

May I take this opportunity to compliment the quality of interaction between your officers and the public at the recent public consultation at Ticehurst Village Hall. Particularly, [redacted] who engaged well on the observations put to him, which led to a constructive discourse on the various sites.

Yours faithfully

Rother Development Plan
I recognise the considerable pressure placed on local authorities by central government to deliver new housing, and I understand the natural reluctance of local communities to see change in the character of the places they value. While it is entirely reasonable for residents to wish to protect the landscape and identity of their environment, there is also a clear need for additional homes within the parish. That need must, however, be met in a way that provides a balanced mix of housing types and tenures, ensuring that all sections of the community — including young families, local workers, and older residents wishing to downsize — can be properly accommodated. My comments on the proposed sites are therefore made in the spirit of supporting appropriate, well located development that meets genuine local need without undermining the qualities that make the parish distinctive.
Flimwell – Sites 1, 2 and 3 (Cherry Tree Cluster)
Site 1 — Cherry Tree Nursery, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
Support, subject to provisos
This site lies immediately adjacent to Sites 2 and 3, and all three share the same fundamental characteristics: they sit outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet they form a coherent cluster on the edge of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding the rejection of my own Church Farm site on similar grounds, I support the allocation of this land because it represents a more logical and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
The site can accommodate modest housing if handled sensitively. However, the cluster of Sites 1–3 is affected by the same access and traffic constraints associated with the A268/A21 junction. Although the junction is controlled by intelligent traffic lights, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity at busy times.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate these delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 1 is acceptable only if:
• a clear and deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured,
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved, and
• building heights and boundary treatments are designed to minimise landscape impact within the AONB.
With these provisos, Site 1 represents an appropriate and deliverable location for new housing.
Site 2 — Junction of London Road and A268 (North)
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
This site sits immediately alongside Sites 1 and 3 and shares the same characteristics: it lies outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet forms part of a coherent cluster of land well related to the existing settlement. I support the allocation in principle, provided that the known constraints are properly addressed.
A key issue for this site is its relationship with the A21/A268 junction, which is controlled by intelligent traffic lights. While these operate efficiently under normal conditions, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity.
Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were identified as land required for future A21 improvements. If these sites are now allocated for housing, that land will no longer be available for strategic road upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still exists, and
• development would compromise any future improvement scheme.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate peak time delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 2 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured, and
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved.
With these provisos, Site 2 can contribute positively to local housing needs.
Site 3 — Land to the south of A268, Hawkhurst Road
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
Site 3 forms part of the same cluster as Sites 1 and 2, lying outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Notwithstanding these constraints, I support the allocation in principle because the land is well related to the existing settlement and represents a more coherent and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
However, the site shares the same strategic constraints as Site 2. Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were earmarked for future A21 improvement works, and allocating them for housing may sterilise land required for long term strategic transport upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still applies, and
• development would compromise any future A21 scheme.
In addition to the A21 safeguarding issue, pedestrian access from Site 3 to the western part of the village is severely constrained there being no footpath. Reaching the village hall and other facilities requires crossing the A21. While there is a controlled pedestrian crossing on the north side of the traffic light junction, there is:
• no pedestrian crossing on the south side of the A21, and
• no crossing of the A268 to the north to enable pedestrians to reach the existing A21 crossing safely.
This means that residents of Site 3 would have no safe or direct pedestrian route to the western section of the village and could be forced to negotiate fast moving traffic at an already complex junction.
Given these constraints, development at Site 3 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable pedestrian access solution is secured, and
• landscape, drainage and access impacts are properly mitigated.
With these provisos, Site 3 can be considered a suitable location for modest, sensitively designed development.
Flimwell – Other Sites
Site 4 — Land to the rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
Strong objection
I strongly object to the allocation of this site. While there is existing planning permission for a small development within the area marked in blue, the extended areas marked in yellow and red raise significant and insurmountable concerns.
First, the yellow and red areas encroach directly onto ancient woodland and a thriving wildlife habitat. This woodland forms part of a wider ecological corridor and supports a rich variety of species. Any further encroachment would cause irreversible harm to biodiversity and undermine the integrity of the habitat.
Second, the Fruitfields properties were constructed with specific drainage channels beneath them to allow surface water to pass under the houses. This system was designed to take runoff from Union Street and the properties opposite, effectively creating a wetland area that functions as an informal attenuation system. The land therefore performs an important hydrological role, and development would disrupt established drainage patterns, increasing flood risk both on site and downstream.
Third, it is understood locally that the area marked in yellow was historically used as an informal dumping ground. This raises legitimate concerns about ground contamination, stability, and the feasibility of safe construction. Any remediation would be complex, costly, and uncertain, and may not be achievable without significant environmental harm.
Taken together — the presence of ancient woodland, the ecological value of the habitat, the engineered drainage function of the land, and the suspected contamination — these factors make the site impossible to develop safely or sustainably. It should not be taken forward for allocation.
Site 5 — Cedar Farm, Hastings Road, Flimwell
Approve as an employment development, subject to provisos
I support the allocation of Cedar Farm for employment use. Flimwell has a clear need for local employment opportunities, and this site is well placed to accommodate small scale commercial activity without undermining the character of the wider area. However, any development must be carefully controlled to ensure that it remains compatible with its rural and residential surroundings.
In particular:
• building profiles must remain low, both to protect the landscape setting of the High Weald AONB and to avoid creating an overbearing presence when viewed from Hastings Road and neighbouring properties;
• heavy industrial uses must be excluded, as such activities would generate noise, traffic, and environmental impacts inappropriate for this location;
• environmental safeguards should be required to ensure that lighting, noise, and operational hours do not adversely affect the surrounding area.
With these provisos in place, Cedar Farm represents a suitable and beneficial location for employment development that can support the local economy while protecting the environmental quality of Flimwell.
Sites 6 and 7 — Land at Cherry Tree Fields & Land at Steelands Farm, Flimwell
Approve, subject to the provision of a safe pedestrian footpath
Sites 6 and 7 form a natural cluster on the eastern side of Flimwell, close to the primary school and served by a network of minor roads. In principle, both sites represent appropriate locations for modest residential development, provided that a critical pedestrian safety issue is addressed.
At present, pedestrians approaching the village from the east — including schoolchildren — must use the one way section of the B2087, which has no footway. This creates a hazardous route at all times of day, but particularly during school drop off and pick up periods when traffic levels are highest.
To make development at Sites 6 and 7 safe and sustainable, it is essential that a new footpath is provided behind the Cherry Tree public house, linking through to Tinkers Lane. This would:
• remove the need for pedestrians to use the un footpathed one way section of the B2087,
• provide a safe and direct walking route to the primary school,
• improve connectivity to village facilities, and
• ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing safety risks.
With this footpath secured as a condition of allocation, Sites 6 and 7 can be supported as suitable locations for new housing that integrate well with the village and improve pedestrian safety for existing and future residents.
Site 8 — Orchard Farm, Ticehurst
Suitable only for limited development, subject to resolution of key constraints
This site may be suitable for a limited and carefully designed development, but only if two significant constraints are fully addressed.
First, the site lies immediately adjacent to ancient woodland, which forms an important ecological asset and supports a well established wildlife habitat. Any development must avoid encroachment on this woodland and must include robust measures to protect the root protection areas, habitat corridors, and the wider ecological function of the site. Without such safeguards, the proposal would cause unacceptable environmental harm.
Second, the sewage infrastructure serving this part of Ticehurst is currently inadequate. The neighbouring recent development at Lower St Mary’s has been affected by persistent sewage capacity problems, with repeated failures reported by residents. Until these issues are fully resolved and the system demonstrably upgraded to accommodate additional load, it would be inappropriate to introduce further dwellings that would exacerbate an already compromised network.
If — and only if — these two constraints are satisfactorily addressed, a small scale, sensitively designed scheme could be considered appropriate. However, the scale and layout of any development must be tightly controlled to ensure that:
• the ancient woodland is fully protected,
• ecological connectivity is maintained, and
• the upgraded sewage system can reliably support the additional homes.
Subject to these conditions, the site may have potential for limited development, but it should not be allocated for housing unless the environmental and infrastructure constraints are demonstrably resolved.
Site 9 — Land at Lymden Lane, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Lymden Lane is a narrow rural road with no footways, limited passing places, and poor visibility. Pedestrians — including children walking to the primary school — are forced to walk in the carriageway. There is no safe or practical opportunity to provide a footpath due to the tight boundaries, hedgerows, and the rural character of the lane.
As a result, there is no safe pedestrian route from the site to the school or the village centre. Any development here would increase pedestrian and vehicle movements on a road that is already hazardous, particularly at school times.
The site also forms part of the natural drainage catchment feeding the pond at the Acorns development. Altering this land risks disrupting established drainage patterns and could increase surface water problems both on site and downstream.
In addition, Stonegate suffers from long standing sewage capacity issues, with repeated failures affecting properties across the village. Until the system is comprehensively upgraded, it cannot support additional dwellings.
Given the combination of unsafe access, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, drainage sensitivity, and inadequate sewage capacity, Site 9 is not suitable for allocation.
Site 10 — Land east of Bardown Road, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Like Site 9, it is served by narrow, un footpathed rural lanes — Bardown Road and Lymden Lane — both of which carry fast moving traffic and offer no safe walking route to the primary school or village centre. There is no realistic prospect of providing a footway without fundamentally altering the rural character of the area or requiring land that is not available.
The site itself is small and constrained, with limited space for parking and turning. Vehicles would likely need to reverse onto Lymden Lane, creating an unacceptable highway safety hazard on an already narrow and busy rural road.
Stonegate’s sewage infrastructure remains inadequate, with known capacity problems affecting existing residents. Adding further dwellings would place additional pressure on a system that is already failing.
Taken together — the unsafe pedestrian environment, the highway safety risks, the site specific access constraints, and the ongoing sewage capacity failures — Site 10 is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
In conclusion, my comments are offered in the spirit of supporting a fair, evidence based Local Plan that meets genuine local need while safeguarding the qualities that make our parish distinctive. I recognise the pressures on the authority to deliver new homes, and I do not oppose development where it is appropriate, sustainable, and properly supported by infrastructure. My concern is simply that each site is assessed on its merits, with full regard to landscape, ecology, access, drainage, and the lived realities of the communities affected. If these principles are applied consistently, the resulting Plan will serve both current residents and future generations well.
Yours faithfully,

Please confirm receipt of my observations, attached, regarding all 10 proposed sites within the above villages.

May I express my disappointment that the online consultation format did not allow respondents to comment on the merits of the individual sites. Several allocations with very different planning considerations were grouped together under single response boxes, forcing a single ‘support’ or ‘object’ choice for multiple unrelated proposals. This structure makes it impossible to give accurate, site‑specific feedback within the online form itself, which is why my full observations were submitted separately by email on 22 March 2026.

May I take this opportunity to compliment the quality of interaction between your officers and the public at the recent public consultation at Ticehurst Village Hall. Particularly, [redacted] who engaged well on the observations put to him, which led to a constructive discourse on the various sites.

Yours faithfully

Rother Development Plan
I recognise the considerable pressure placed on local authorities by central government to deliver new housing, and I understand the natural reluctance of local communities to see change in the character of the places they value. While it is entirely reasonable for residents to wish to protect the landscape and identity of their environment, there is also a clear need for additional homes within the parish. That need must, however, be met in a way that provides a balanced mix of housing types and tenures, ensuring that all sections of the community — including young families, local workers, and older residents wishing to downsize — can be properly accommodated. My comments on the proposed sites are therefore made in the spirit of supporting appropriate, well located development that meets genuine local need without undermining the qualities that make the parish distinctive.
Flimwell – Sites 1, 2 and 3 (Cherry Tree Cluster)
Site 1 — Cherry Tree Nursery, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
Support, subject to provisos
This site lies immediately adjacent to Sites 2 and 3, and all three share the same fundamental characteristics: they sit outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet they form a coherent cluster on the edge of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding the rejection of my own Church Farm site on similar grounds, I support the allocation of this land because it represents a more logical and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
The site can accommodate modest housing if handled sensitively. However, the cluster of Sites 1–3 is affected by the same access and traffic constraints associated with the A268/A21 junction. Although the junction is controlled by intelligent traffic lights, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity at busy times.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate these delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 1 is acceptable only if:
• a clear and deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured,
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved, and
• building heights and boundary treatments are designed to minimise landscape impact within the AONB.
With these provisos, Site 1 represents an appropriate and deliverable location for new housing.
Site 2 — Junction of London Road and A268 (North)
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
This site sits immediately alongside Sites 1 and 3 and shares the same characteristics: it lies outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet forms part of a coherent cluster of land well related to the existing settlement. I support the allocation in principle, provided that the known constraints are properly addressed.
A key issue for this site is its relationship with the A21/A268 junction, which is controlled by intelligent traffic lights. While these operate efficiently under normal conditions, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity.
Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were identified as land required for future A21 improvements. If these sites are now allocated for housing, that land will no longer be available for strategic road upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still exists, and
• development would compromise any future improvement scheme.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate peak time delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 2 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured, and
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved.
With these provisos, Site 2 can contribute positively to local housing needs.
Site 3 — Land to the south of A268, Hawkhurst Road
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
Site 3 forms part of the same cluster as Sites 1 and 2, lying outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Notwithstanding these constraints, I support the allocation in principle because the land is well related to the existing settlement and represents a more coherent and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
However, the site shares the same strategic constraints as Site 2. Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were earmarked for future A21 improvement works, and allocating them for housing may sterilise land required for long term strategic transport upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still applies, and
• development would compromise any future A21 scheme.
In addition to the A21 safeguarding issue, pedestrian access from Site 3 to the western part of the village is severely constrained there being no footpath. Reaching the village hall and other facilities requires crossing the A21. While there is a controlled pedestrian crossing on the north side of the traffic light junction, there is:
• no pedestrian crossing on the south side of the A21, and
• no crossing of the A268 to the north to enable pedestrians to reach the existing A21 crossing safely.
This means that residents of Site 3 would have no safe or direct pedestrian route to the western section of the village and could be forced to negotiate fast moving traffic at an already complex junction.
Given these constraints, development at Site 3 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable pedestrian access solution is secured, and
• landscape, drainage and access impacts are properly mitigated.
With these provisos, Site 3 can be considered a suitable location for modest, sensitively designed development.
Flimwell – Other Sites
Site 4 — Land to the rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
Strong objection
I strongly object to the allocation of this site. While there is existing planning permission for a small development within the area marked in blue, the extended areas marked in yellow and red raise significant and insurmountable concerns.
First, the yellow and red areas encroach directly onto ancient woodland and a thriving wildlife habitat. This woodland forms part of a wider ecological corridor and supports a rich variety of species. Any further encroachment would cause irreversible harm to biodiversity and undermine the integrity of the habitat.
Second, the Fruitfields properties were constructed with specific drainage channels beneath them to allow surface water to pass under the houses. This system was designed to take runoff from Union Street and the properties opposite, effectively creating a wetland area that functions as an informal attenuation system. The land therefore performs an important hydrological role, and development would disrupt established drainage patterns, increasing flood risk both on site and downstream.
Third, it is understood locally that the area marked in yellow was historically used as an informal dumping ground. This raises legitimate concerns about ground contamination, stability, and the feasibility of safe construction. Any remediation would be complex, costly, and uncertain, and may not be achievable without significant environmental harm.
Taken together — the presence of ancient woodland, the ecological value of the habitat, the engineered drainage function of the land, and the suspected contamination — these factors make the site impossible to develop safely or sustainably. It should not be taken forward for allocation.
Site 5 — Cedar Farm, Hastings Road, Flimwell
Approve as an employment development, subject to provisos
I support the allocation of Cedar Farm for employment use. Flimwell has a clear need for local employment opportunities, and this site is well placed to accommodate small scale commercial activity without undermining the character of the wider area. However, any development must be carefully controlled to ensure that it remains compatible with its rural and residential surroundings.
In particular:
• building profiles must remain low, both to protect the landscape setting of the High Weald AONB and to avoid creating an overbearing presence when viewed from Hastings Road and neighbouring properties;
• heavy industrial uses must be excluded, as such activities would generate noise, traffic, and environmental impacts inappropriate for this location;
• environmental safeguards should be required to ensure that lighting, noise, and operational hours do not adversely affect the surrounding area.
With these provisos in place, Cedar Farm represents a suitable and beneficial location for employment development that can support the local economy while protecting the environmental quality of Flimwell.
Sites 6 and 7 — Land at Cherry Tree Fields & Land at Steelands Farm, Flimwell
Approve, subject to the provision of a safe pedestrian footpath
Sites 6 and 7 form a natural cluster on the eastern side of Flimwell, close to the primary school and served by a network of minor roads. In principle, both sites represent appropriate locations for modest residential development, provided that a critical pedestrian safety issue is addressed.
At present, pedestrians approaching the village from the east — including schoolchildren — must use the one way section of the B2087, which has no footway. This creates a hazardous route at all times of day, but particularly during school drop off and pick up periods when traffic levels are highest.
To make development at Sites 6 and 7 safe and sustainable, it is essential that a new footpath is provided behind the Cherry Tree public house, linking through to Tinkers Lane. This would:
• remove the need for pedestrians to use the un footpathed one way section of the B2087,
• provide a safe and direct walking route to the primary school,
• improve connectivity to village facilities, and
• ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing safety risks.
With this footpath secured as a condition of allocation, Sites 6 and 7 can be supported as suitable locations for new housing that integrate well with the village and improve pedestrian safety for existing and future residents.
Site 8 — Orchard Farm, Ticehurst
Suitable only for limited development, subject to resolution of key constraints
This site may be suitable for a limited and carefully designed development, but only if two significant constraints are fully addressed.
First, the site lies immediately adjacent to ancient woodland, which forms an important ecological asset and supports a well established wildlife habitat. Any development must avoid encroachment on this woodland and must include robust measures to protect the root protection areas, habitat corridors, and the wider ecological function of the site. Without such safeguards, the proposal would cause unacceptable environmental harm.
Second, the sewage infrastructure serving this part of Ticehurst is currently inadequate. The neighbouring recent development at Lower St Mary’s has been affected by persistent sewage capacity problems, with repeated failures reported by residents. Until these issues are fully resolved and the system demonstrably upgraded to accommodate additional load, it would be inappropriate to introduce further dwellings that would exacerbate an already compromised network.
If — and only if — these two constraints are satisfactorily addressed, a small scale, sensitively designed scheme could be considered appropriate. However, the scale and layout of any development must be tightly controlled to ensure that:
• the ancient woodland is fully protected,
• ecological connectivity is maintained, and
• the upgraded sewage system can reliably support the additional homes.
Subject to these conditions, the site may have potential for limited development, but it should not be allocated for housing unless the environmental and infrastructure constraints are demonstrably resolved.
Site 9 — Land at Lymden Lane, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Lymden Lane is a narrow rural road with no footways, limited passing places, and poor visibility. Pedestrians — including children walking to the primary school — are forced to walk in the carriageway. There is no safe or practical opportunity to provide a footpath due to the tight boundaries, hedgerows, and the rural character of the lane.
As a result, there is no safe pedestrian route from the site to the school or the village centre. Any development here would increase pedestrian and vehicle movements on a road that is already hazardous, particularly at school times.
The site also forms part of the natural drainage catchment feeding the pond at the Acorns development. Altering this land risks disrupting established drainage patterns and could increase surface water problems both on site and downstream.
In addition, Stonegate suffers from long standing sewage capacity issues, with repeated failures affecting properties across the village. Until the system is comprehensively upgraded, it cannot support additional dwellings.
Given the combination of unsafe access, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, drainage sensitivity, and inadequate sewage capacity, Site 9 is not suitable for allocation.
Site 10 — Land east of Bardown Road, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Like Site 9, it is served by narrow, un footpathed rural lanes — Bardown Road and Lymden Lane — both of which carry fast moving traffic and offer no safe walking route to the primary school or village centre. There is no realistic prospect of providing a footway without fundamentally altering the rural character of the area or requiring land that is not available.
The site itself is small and constrained, with limited space for parking and turning. Vehicles would likely need to reverse onto Lymden Lane, creating an unacceptable highway safety hazard on an already narrow and busy rural road.
Stonegate’s sewage infrastructure remains inadequate, with known capacity problems affecting existing residents. Adding further dwellings would place additional pressure on a system that is already failing.
Taken together — the unsafe pedestrian environment, the highway safety risks, the site specific access constraints, and the ongoing sewage capacity failures — Site 10 is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
In conclusion, my comments are offered in the spirit of supporting a fair, evidence based Local Plan that meets genuine local need while safeguarding the qualities that make our parish distinctive. I recognise the pressures on the authority to deliver new homes, and I do not oppose development where it is appropriate, sustainable, and properly supported by infrastructure. My concern is simply that each site is assessed on its merits, with full regard to landscape, ecology, access, drainage, and the lived realities of the communities affected. If these principles are applied consistently, the resulting Plan will serve both current residents and future generations well.
Yours faithfully,

Please confirm receipt of my observations, attached, regarding all 10 proposed sites within the above villages.

May I express my disappointment that the online consultation format did not allow respondents to comment on the merits of the individual sites. Several allocations with very different planning considerations were grouped together under single response boxes, forcing a single ‘support’ or ‘object’ choice for multiple unrelated proposals. This structure makes it impossible to give accurate, site‑specific feedback within the online form itself, which is why my full observations were submitted separately by email on 22 March 2026.

May I take this opportunity to compliment the quality of interaction between your officers and the public at the recent public consultation at Ticehurst Village Hall. Particularly, [redacted] who engaged well on the observations put to him, which led to a constructive discourse on the various sites.

Yours faithfully

Rother Development Plan
I recognise the considerable pressure placed on local authorities by central government to deliver new housing, and I understand the natural reluctance of local communities to see change in the character of the places they value. While it is entirely reasonable for residents to wish to protect the landscape and identity of their environment, there is also a clear need for additional homes within the parish. That need must, however, be met in a way that provides a balanced mix of housing types and tenures, ensuring that all sections of the community — including young families, local workers, and older residents wishing to downsize — can be properly accommodated. My comments on the proposed sites are therefore made in the spirit of supporting appropriate, well located development that meets genuine local need without undermining the qualities that make the parish distinctive.
Flimwell – Sites 1, 2 and 3 (Cherry Tree Cluster)
Site 1 — Cherry Tree Nursery, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
Support, subject to provisos
This site lies immediately adjacent to Sites 2 and 3, and all three share the same fundamental characteristics: they sit outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet they form a coherent cluster on the edge of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding the rejection of my own Church Farm site on similar grounds, I support the allocation of this land because it represents a more logical and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
The site can accommodate modest housing if handled sensitively. However, the cluster of Sites 1–3 is affected by the same access and traffic constraints associated with the A268/A21 junction. Although the junction is controlled by intelligent traffic lights, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity at busy times.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate these delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 1 is acceptable only if:
• a clear and deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured,
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved, and
• building heights and boundary treatments are designed to minimise landscape impact within the AONB.
With these provisos, Site 1 represents an appropriate and deliverable location for new housing.
Site 2 — Junction of London Road and A268 (North)
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
This site sits immediately alongside Sites 1 and 3 and shares the same characteristics: it lies outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet forms part of a coherent cluster of land well related to the existing settlement. I support the allocation in principle, provided that the known constraints are properly addressed.
A key issue for this site is its relationship with the A21/A268 junction, which is controlled by intelligent traffic lights. While these operate efficiently under normal conditions, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity.
Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were identified as land required for future A21 improvements. If these sites are now allocated for housing, that land will no longer be available for strategic road upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still exists, and
• development would compromise any future improvement scheme.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate peak time delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 2 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured, and
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved.
With these provisos, Site 2 can contribute positively to local housing needs.
Site 3 — Land to the south of A268, Hawkhurst Road
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
Site 3 forms part of the same cluster as Sites 1 and 2, lying outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Notwithstanding these constraints, I support the allocation in principle because the land is well related to the existing settlement and represents a more coherent and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
However, the site shares the same strategic constraints as Site 2. Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were earmarked for future A21 improvement works, and allocating them for housing may sterilise land required for long term strategic transport upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still applies, and
• development would compromise any future A21 scheme.
In addition to the A21 safeguarding issue, pedestrian access from Site 3 to the western part of the village is severely constrained there being no footpath. Reaching the village hall and other facilities requires crossing the A21. While there is a controlled pedestrian crossing on the north side of the traffic light junction, there is:
• no pedestrian crossing on the south side of the A21, and
• no crossing of the A268 to the north to enable pedestrians to reach the existing A21 crossing safely.
This means that residents of Site 3 would have no safe or direct pedestrian route to the western section of the village and could be forced to negotiate fast moving traffic at an already complex junction.
Given these constraints, development at Site 3 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable pedestrian access solution is secured, and
• landscape, drainage and access impacts are properly mitigated.
With these provisos, Site 3 can be considered a suitable location for modest, sensitively designed development.
Flimwell – Other Sites
Site 4 — Land to the rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
Strong objection
I strongly object to the allocation of this site. While there is existing planning permission for a small development within the area marked in blue, the extended areas marked in yellow and red raise significant and insurmountable concerns.
First, the yellow and red areas encroach directly onto ancient woodland and a thriving wildlife habitat. This woodland forms part of a wider ecological corridor and supports a rich variety of species. Any further encroachment would cause irreversible harm to biodiversity and undermine the integrity of the habitat.
Second, the Fruitfields properties were constructed with specific drainage channels beneath them to allow surface water to pass under the houses. This system was designed to take runoff from Union Street and the properties opposite, effectively creating a wetland area that functions as an informal attenuation system. The land therefore performs an important hydrological role, and development would disrupt established drainage patterns, increasing flood risk both on site and downstream.
Third, it is understood locally that the area marked in yellow was historically used as an informal dumping ground. This raises legitimate concerns about ground contamination, stability, and the feasibility of safe construction. Any remediation would be complex, costly, and uncertain, and may not be achievable without significant environmental harm.
Taken together — the presence of ancient woodland, the ecological value of the habitat, the engineered drainage function of the land, and the suspected contamination — these factors make the site impossible to develop safely or sustainably. It should not be taken forward for allocation.
Site 5 — Cedar Farm, Hastings Road, Flimwell
Approve as an employment development, subject to provisos
I support the allocation of Cedar Farm for employment use. Flimwell has a clear need for local employment opportunities, and this site is well placed to accommodate small scale commercial activity without undermining the character of the wider area. However, any development must be carefully controlled to ensure that it remains compatible with its rural and residential surroundings.
In particular:
• building profiles must remain low, both to protect the landscape setting of the High Weald AONB and to avoid creating an overbearing presence when viewed from Hastings Road and neighbouring properties;
• heavy industrial uses must be excluded, as such activities would generate noise, traffic, and environmental impacts inappropriate for this location;
• environmental safeguards should be required to ensure that lighting, noise, and operational hours do not adversely affect the surrounding area.
With these provisos in place, Cedar Farm represents a suitable and beneficial location for employment development that can support the local economy while protecting the environmental quality of Flimwell.
Sites 6 and 7 — Land at Cherry Tree Fields & Land at Steelands Farm, Flimwell
Approve, subject to the provision of a safe pedestrian footpath
Sites 6 and 7 form a natural cluster on the eastern side of Flimwell, close to the primary school and served by a network of minor roads. In principle, both sites represent appropriate locations for modest residential development, provided that a critical pedestrian safety issue is addressed.
At present, pedestrians approaching the village from the east — including schoolchildren — must use the one way section of the B2087, which has no footway. This creates a hazardous route at all times of day, but particularly during school drop off and pick up periods when traffic levels are highest.
To make development at Sites 6 and 7 safe and sustainable, it is essential that a new footpath is provided behind the Cherry Tree public house, linking through to Tinkers Lane. This would:
• remove the need for pedestrians to use the un footpathed one way section of the B2087,
• provide a safe and direct walking route to the primary school,
• improve connectivity to village facilities, and
• ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing safety risks.
With this footpath secured as a condition of allocation, Sites 6 and 7 can be supported as suitable locations for new housing that integrate well with the village and improve pedestrian safety for existing and future residents.
Site 8 — Orchard Farm, Ticehurst
Suitable only for limited development, subject to resolution of key constraints
This site may be suitable for a limited and carefully designed development, but only if two significant constraints are fully addressed.
First, the site lies immediately adjacent to ancient woodland, which forms an important ecological asset and supports a well established wildlife habitat. Any development must avoid encroachment on this woodland and must include robust measures to protect the root protection areas, habitat corridors, and the wider ecological function of the site. Without such safeguards, the proposal would cause unacceptable environmental harm.
Second, the sewage infrastructure serving this part of Ticehurst is currently inadequate. The neighbouring recent development at Lower St Mary’s has been affected by persistent sewage capacity problems, with repeated failures reported by residents. Until these issues are fully resolved and the system demonstrably upgraded to accommodate additional load, it would be inappropriate to introduce further dwellings that would exacerbate an already compromised network.
If — and only if — these two constraints are satisfactorily addressed, a small scale, sensitively designed scheme could be considered appropriate. However, the scale and layout of any development must be tightly controlled to ensure that:
• the ancient woodland is fully protected,
• ecological connectivity is maintained, and
• the upgraded sewage system can reliably support the additional homes.
Subject to these conditions, the site may have potential for limited development, but it should not be allocated for housing unless the environmental and infrastructure constraints are demonstrably resolved.
Site 9 — Land at Lymden Lane, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Lymden Lane is a narrow rural road with no footways, limited passing places, and poor visibility. Pedestrians — including children walking to the primary school — are forced to walk in the carriageway. There is no safe or practical opportunity to provide a footpath due to the tight boundaries, hedgerows, and the rural character of the lane.
As a result, there is no safe pedestrian route from the site to the school or the village centre. Any development here would increase pedestrian and vehicle movements on a road that is already hazardous, particularly at school times.
The site also forms part of the natural drainage catchment feeding the pond at the Acorns development. Altering this land risks disrupting established drainage patterns and could increase surface water problems both on site and downstream.
In addition, Stonegate suffers from long standing sewage capacity issues, with repeated failures affecting properties across the village. Until the system is comprehensively upgraded, it cannot support additional dwellings.
Given the combination of unsafe access, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, drainage sensitivity, and inadequate sewage capacity, Site 9 is not suitable for allocation.
Site 10 — Land east of Bardown Road, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Like Site 9, it is served by narrow, un footpathed rural lanes — Bardown Road and Lymden Lane — both of which carry fast moving traffic and offer no safe walking route to the primary school or village centre. There is no realistic prospect of providing a footway without fundamentally altering the rural character of the area or requiring land that is not available.
The site itself is small and constrained, with limited space for parking and turning. Vehicles would likely need to reverse onto Lymden Lane, creating an unacceptable highway safety hazard on an already narrow and busy rural road.
Stonegate’s sewage infrastructure remains inadequate, with known capacity problems affecting existing residents. Adding further dwellings would place additional pressure on a system that is already failing.
Taken together — the unsafe pedestrian environment, the highway safety risks, the site specific access constraints, and the ongoing sewage capacity failures — Site 10 is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
In conclusion, my comments are offered in the spirit of supporting a fair, evidence based Local Plan that meets genuine local need while safeguarding the qualities that make our parish distinctive. I recognise the pressures on the authority to deliver new homes, and I do not oppose development where it is appropriate, sustainable, and properly supported by infrastructure. My concern is simply that each site is assessed on its merits, with full regard to landscape, ecology, access, drainage, and the lived realities of the communities affected. If these principles are applied consistently, the resulting Plan will serve both current residents and future generations well.
Yours faithfully,

Please confirm receipt of my observations, attached, regarding all 10 proposed sites within the above villages.

May I express my disappointment that the online consultation format did not allow respondents to comment on the merits of the individual sites. Several allocations with very different planning considerations were grouped together under single response boxes, forcing a single ‘support’ or ‘object’ choice for multiple unrelated proposals. This structure makes it impossible to give accurate, site‑specific feedback within the online form itself, which is why my full observations were submitted separately by email on 22 March 2026.

May I take this opportunity to compliment the quality of interaction between your officers and the public at the recent public consultation at Ticehurst Village Hall. Particularly, [redacted] who engaged well on the observations put to him, which led to a constructive discourse on the various sites.

Yours faithfully

Rother Development Plan
I recognise the considerable pressure placed on local authorities by central government to deliver new housing, and I understand the natural reluctance of local communities to see change in the character of the places they value. While it is entirely reasonable for residents to wish to protect the landscape and identity of their environment, there is also a clear need for additional homes within the parish. That need must, however, be met in a way that provides a balanced mix of housing types and tenures, ensuring that all sections of the community — including young families, local workers, and older residents wishing to downsize — can be properly accommodated. My comments on the proposed sites are therefore made in the spirit of supporting appropriate, well located development that meets genuine local need without undermining the qualities that make the parish distinctive.
Flimwell – Sites 1, 2 and 3 (Cherry Tree Cluster)
Site 1 — Cherry Tree Nursery, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
Support, subject to provisos
This site lies immediately adjacent to Sites 2 and 3, and all three share the same fundamental characteristics: they sit outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet they form a coherent cluster on the edge of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding the rejection of my own Church Farm site on similar grounds, I support the allocation of this land because it represents a more logical and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
The site can accommodate modest housing if handled sensitively. However, the cluster of Sites 1–3 is affected by the same access and traffic constraints associated with the A268/A21 junction. Although the junction is controlled by intelligent traffic lights, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity at busy times.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate these delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 1 is acceptable only if:
• a clear and deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured,
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved, and
• building heights and boundary treatments are designed to minimise landscape impact within the AONB.
With these provisos, Site 1 represents an appropriate and deliverable location for new housing.
Site 2 — Junction of London Road and A268 (North)
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
This site sits immediately alongside Sites 1 and 3 and shares the same characteristics: it lies outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet forms part of a coherent cluster of land well related to the existing settlement. I support the allocation in principle, provided that the known constraints are properly addressed.
A key issue for this site is its relationship with the A21/A268 junction, which is controlled by intelligent traffic lights. While these operate efficiently under normal conditions, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity.
Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were identified as land required for future A21 improvements. If these sites are now allocated for housing, that land will no longer be available for strategic road upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still exists, and
• development would compromise any future improvement scheme.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate peak time delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 2 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured, and
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved.
With these provisos, Site 2 can contribute positively to local housing needs.
Site 3 — Land to the south of A268, Hawkhurst Road
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
Site 3 forms part of the same cluster as Sites 1 and 2, lying outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Notwithstanding these constraints, I support the allocation in principle because the land is well related to the existing settlement and represents a more coherent and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
However, the site shares the same strategic constraints as Site 2. Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were earmarked for future A21 improvement works, and allocating them for housing may sterilise land required for long term strategic transport upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still applies, and
• development would compromise any future A21 scheme.
In addition to the A21 safeguarding issue, pedestrian access from Site 3 to the western part of the village is severely constrained there being no footpath. Reaching the village hall and other facilities requires crossing the A21. While there is a controlled pedestrian crossing on the north side of the traffic light junction, there is:
• no pedestrian crossing on the south side of the A21, and
• no crossing of the A268 to the north to enable pedestrians to reach the existing A21 crossing safely.
This means that residents of Site 3 would have no safe or direct pedestrian route to the western section of the village and could be forced to negotiate fast moving traffic at an already complex junction.
Given these constraints, development at Site 3 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable pedestrian access solution is secured, and
• landscape, drainage and access impacts are properly mitigated.
With these provisos, Site 3 can be considered a suitable location for modest, sensitively designed development.
Flimwell – Other Sites
Site 4 — Land to the rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
Strong objection
I strongly object to the allocation of this site. While there is existing planning permission for a small development within the area marked in blue, the extended areas marked in yellow and red raise significant and insurmountable concerns.
First, the yellow and red areas encroach directly onto ancient woodland and a thriving wildlife habitat. This woodland forms part of a wider ecological corridor and supports a rich variety of species. Any further encroachment would cause irreversible harm to biodiversity and undermine the integrity of the habitat.
Second, the Fruitfields properties were constructed with specific drainage channels beneath them to allow surface water to pass under the houses. This system was designed to take runoff from Union Street and the properties opposite, effectively creating a wetland area that functions as an informal attenuation system. The land therefore performs an important hydrological role, and development would disrupt established drainage patterns, increasing flood risk both on site and downstream.
Third, it is understood locally that the area marked in yellow was historically used as an informal dumping ground. This raises legitimate concerns about ground contamination, stability, and the feasibility of safe construction. Any remediation would be complex, costly, and uncertain, and may not be achievable without significant environmental harm.
Taken together — the presence of ancient woodland, the ecological value of the habitat, the engineered drainage function of the land, and the suspected contamination — these factors make the site impossible to develop safely or sustainably. It should not be taken forward for allocation.
Site 5 — Cedar Farm, Hastings Road, Flimwell
Approve as an employment development, subject to provisos
I support the allocation of Cedar Farm for employment use. Flimwell has a clear need for local employment opportunities, and this site is well placed to accommodate small scale commercial activity without undermining the character of the wider area. However, any development must be carefully controlled to ensure that it remains compatible with its rural and residential surroundings.
In particular:
• building profiles must remain low, both to protect the landscape setting of the High Weald AONB and to avoid creating an overbearing presence when viewed from Hastings Road and neighbouring properties;
• heavy industrial uses must be excluded, as such activities would generate noise, traffic, and environmental impacts inappropriate for this location;
• environmental safeguards should be required to ensure that lighting, noise, and operational hours do not adversely affect the surrounding area.
With these provisos in place, Cedar Farm represents a suitable and beneficial location for employment development that can support the local economy while protecting the environmental quality of Flimwell.
Sites 6 and 7 — Land at Cherry Tree Fields & Land at Steelands Farm, Flimwell
Approve, subject to the provision of a safe pedestrian footpath
Sites 6 and 7 form a natural cluster on the eastern side of Flimwell, close to the primary school and served by a network of minor roads. In principle, both sites represent appropriate locations for modest residential development, provided that a critical pedestrian safety issue is addressed.
At present, pedestrians approaching the village from the east — including schoolchildren — must use the one way section of the B2087, which has no footway. This creates a hazardous route at all times of day, but particularly during school drop off and pick up periods when traffic levels are highest.
To make development at Sites 6 and 7 safe and sustainable, it is essential that a new footpath is provided behind the Cherry Tree public house, linking through to Tinkers Lane. This would:
• remove the need for pedestrians to use the un footpathed one way section of the B2087,
• provide a safe and direct walking route to the primary school,
• improve connectivity to village facilities, and
• ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing safety risks.
With this footpath secured as a condition of allocation, Sites 6 and 7 can be supported as suitable locations for new housing that integrate well with the village and improve pedestrian safety for existing and future residents.
Site 8 — Orchard Farm, Ticehurst
Suitable only for limited development, subject to resolution of key constraints
This site may be suitable for a limited and carefully designed development, but only if two significant constraints are fully addressed.
First, the site lies immediately adjacent to ancient woodland, which forms an important ecological asset and supports a well established wildlife habitat. Any development must avoid encroachment on this woodland and must include robust measures to protect the root protection areas, habitat corridors, and the wider ecological function of the site. Without such safeguards, the proposal would cause unacceptable environmental harm.
Second, the sewage infrastructure serving this part of Ticehurst is currently inadequate. The neighbouring recent development at Lower St Mary’s has been affected by persistent sewage capacity problems, with repeated failures reported by residents. Until these issues are fully resolved and the system demonstrably upgraded to accommodate additional load, it would be inappropriate to introduce further dwellings that would exacerbate an already compromised network.
If — and only if — these two constraints are satisfactorily addressed, a small scale, sensitively designed scheme could be considered appropriate. However, the scale and layout of any development must be tightly controlled to ensure that:
• the ancient woodland is fully protected,
• ecological connectivity is maintained, and
• the upgraded sewage system can reliably support the additional homes.
Subject to these conditions, the site may have potential for limited development, but it should not be allocated for housing unless the environmental and infrastructure constraints are demonstrably resolved.
Site 9 — Land at Lymden Lane, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Lymden Lane is a narrow rural road with no footways, limited passing places, and poor visibility. Pedestrians — including children walking to the primary school — are forced to walk in the carriageway. There is no safe or practical opportunity to provide a footpath due to the tight boundaries, hedgerows, and the rural character of the lane.
As a result, there is no safe pedestrian route from the site to the school or the village centre. Any development here would increase pedestrian and vehicle movements on a road that is already hazardous, particularly at school times.
The site also forms part of the natural drainage catchment feeding the pond at the Acorns development. Altering this land risks disrupting established drainage patterns and could increase surface water problems both on site and downstream.
In addition, Stonegate suffers from long standing sewage capacity issues, with repeated failures affecting properties across the village. Until the system is comprehensively upgraded, it cannot support additional dwellings.
Given the combination of unsafe access, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, drainage sensitivity, and inadequate sewage capacity, Site 9 is not suitable for allocation.
Site 10 — Land east of Bardown Road, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Like Site 9, it is served by narrow, un footpathed rural lanes — Bardown Road and Lymden Lane — both of which carry fast moving traffic and offer no safe walking route to the primary school or village centre. There is no realistic prospect of providing a footway without fundamentally altering the rural character of the area or requiring land that is not available.
The site itself is small and constrained, with limited space for parking and turning. Vehicles would likely need to reverse onto Lymden Lane, creating an unacceptable highway safety hazard on an already narrow and busy rural road.
Stonegate’s sewage infrastructure remains inadequate, with known capacity problems affecting existing residents. Adding further dwellings would place additional pressure on a system that is already failing.
Taken together — the unsafe pedestrian environment, the highway safety risks, the site specific access constraints, and the ongoing sewage capacity failures — Site 10 is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
In conclusion, my comments are offered in the spirit of supporting a fair, evidence based Local Plan that meets genuine local need while safeguarding the qualities that make our parish distinctive. I recognise the pressures on the authority to deliver new homes, and I do not oppose development where it is appropriate, sustainable, and properly supported by infrastructure. My concern is simply that each site is assessed on its merits, with full regard to landscape, ecology, access, drainage, and the lived realities of the communities affected. If these principles are applied consistently, the resulting Plan will serve both current residents and future generations well.
Yours faithfully,

Please confirm receipt of my observations, attached, regarding all 10 proposed sites within the above villages.

May I express my disappointment that the online consultation format did not allow respondents to comment on the merits of the individual sites. Several allocations with very different planning considerations were grouped together under single response boxes, forcing a single ‘support’ or ‘object’ choice for multiple unrelated proposals. This structure makes it impossible to give accurate, site‑specific feedback within the online form itself, which is why my full observations were submitted separately by email on 22 March 2026.

May I take this opportunity to compliment the quality of interaction between your officers and the public at the recent public consultation at Ticehurst Village Hall. Particularly, [redacted] who engaged well on the observations put to him, which led to a constructive discourse on the various sites.

Yours faithfully

Rother Development Plan
I recognise the considerable pressure placed on local authorities by central government to deliver new housing, and I understand the natural reluctance of local communities to see change in the character of the places they value. While it is entirely reasonable for residents to wish to protect the landscape and identity of their environment, there is also a clear need for additional homes within the parish. That need must, however, be met in a way that provides a balanced mix of housing types and tenures, ensuring that all sections of the community — including young families, local workers, and older residents wishing to downsize — can be properly accommodated. My comments on the proposed sites are therefore made in the spirit of supporting appropriate, well located development that meets genuine local need without undermining the qualities that make the parish distinctive.
Flimwell – Sites 1, 2 and 3 (Cherry Tree Cluster)
Site 1 — Cherry Tree Nursery, Hawkhurst Road, Flimwell
Support, subject to provisos
This site lies immediately adjacent to Sites 2 and 3, and all three share the same fundamental characteristics: they sit outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet they form a coherent cluster on the edge of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding the rejection of my own Church Farm site on similar grounds, I support the allocation of this land because it represents a more logical and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
The site can accommodate modest housing if handled sensitively. However, the cluster of Sites 1–3 is affected by the same access and traffic constraints associated with the A268/A21 junction. Although the junction is controlled by intelligent traffic lights, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity at busy times.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate these delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 1 is acceptable only if:
• a clear and deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured,
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved, and
• building heights and boundary treatments are designed to minimise landscape impact within the AONB.
With these provisos, Site 1 represents an appropriate and deliverable location for new housing.
Site 2 — Junction of London Road and A268 (North)
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
This site sits immediately alongside Sites 1 and 3 and shares the same characteristics: it lies outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB, yet forms part of a coherent cluster of land well related to the existing settlement. I support the allocation in principle, provided that the known constraints are properly addressed.
A key issue for this site is its relationship with the A21/A268 junction, which is controlled by intelligent traffic lights. While these operate efficiently under normal conditions, peak time queues regularly build up on the minor road approaches, extending:
• eastwards to the Flimwell parish boundary, and
• westwards along Union Street.
This demonstrates that the junction is already operating close to capacity.
Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were identified as land required for future A21 improvements. If these sites are now allocated for housing, that land will no longer be available for strategic road upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still exists, and
• development would compromise any future improvement scheme.
In theory, a roundabout could alleviate peak time delays, but delivering such a scheme would require the compulsory purchase of the Furniture Barn site and the redundant public house. The public house is a listed building and sits directly where the central island of a roundabout would need to be located, making this option practically unachievable.
Given these constraints, development at Site 2 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable highway mitigation strategy is secured, and
• pedestrian connectivity to village facilities is improved.
With these provisos, Site 2 can contribute positively to local housing needs.
Site 3 — Land to the south of A268, Hawkhurst Road
Support, subject to provisos and confirmation from National Highways
Site 3 forms part of the same cluster as Sites 1 and 2, lying outside the Flimwell development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Notwithstanding these constraints, I support the allocation in principle because the land is well related to the existing settlement and represents a more coherent and less harmful location for growth than many alternatives.
However, the site shares the same strategic constraints as Site 2. Historically, Sites 2 and 3 were earmarked for future A21 improvement works, and allocating them for housing may sterilise land required for long term strategic transport upgrades. It is therefore essential that National Highways is formally consulted to confirm whether:
• the safeguarding requirement still applies, and
• development would compromise any future A21 scheme.
In addition to the A21 safeguarding issue, pedestrian access from Site 3 to the western part of the village is severely constrained there being no footpath. Reaching the village hall and other facilities requires crossing the A21. While there is a controlled pedestrian crossing on the north side of the traffic light junction, there is:
• no pedestrian crossing on the south side of the A21, and
• no crossing of the A268 to the north to enable pedestrians to reach the existing A21 crossing safely.
This means that residents of Site 3 would have no safe or direct pedestrian route to the western section of the village and could be forced to negotiate fast moving traffic at an already complex junction.
Given these constraints, development at Site 3 is acceptable only if:
• National Highways confirms that the land is no longer required for A21 improvements,
• a deliverable pedestrian access solution is secured, and
• landscape, drainage and access impacts are properly mitigated.
With these provisos, Site 3 can be considered a suitable location for modest, sensitively designed development.
Flimwell – Other Sites
Site 4 — Land to the rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell
Strong objection
I strongly object to the allocation of this site. While there is existing planning permission for a small development within the area marked in blue, the extended areas marked in yellow and red raise significant and insurmountable concerns.
First, the yellow and red areas encroach directly onto ancient woodland and a thriving wildlife habitat. This woodland forms part of a wider ecological corridor and supports a rich variety of species. Any further encroachment would cause irreversible harm to biodiversity and undermine the integrity of the habitat.
Second, the Fruitfields properties were constructed with specific drainage channels beneath them to allow surface water to pass under the houses. This system was designed to take runoff from Union Street and the properties opposite, effectively creating a wetland area that functions as an informal attenuation system. The land therefore performs an important hydrological role, and development would disrupt established drainage patterns, increasing flood risk both on site and downstream.
Third, it is understood locally that the area marked in yellow was historically used as an informal dumping ground. This raises legitimate concerns about ground contamination, stability, and the feasibility of safe construction. Any remediation would be complex, costly, and uncertain, and may not be achievable without significant environmental harm.
Taken together — the presence of ancient woodland, the ecological value of the habitat, the engineered drainage function of the land, and the suspected contamination — these factors make the site impossible to develop safely or sustainably. It should not be taken forward for allocation.
Site 5 — Cedar Farm, Hastings Road, Flimwell
Approve as an employment development, subject to provisos
I support the allocation of Cedar Farm for employment use. Flimwell has a clear need for local employment opportunities, and this site is well placed to accommodate small scale commercial activity without undermining the character of the wider area. However, any development must be carefully controlled to ensure that it remains compatible with its rural and residential surroundings.
In particular:
• building profiles must remain low, both to protect the landscape setting of the High Weald AONB and to avoid creating an overbearing presence when viewed from Hastings Road and neighbouring properties;
• heavy industrial uses must be excluded, as such activities would generate noise, traffic, and environmental impacts inappropriate for this location;
• environmental safeguards should be required to ensure that lighting, noise, and operational hours do not adversely affect the surrounding area.
With these provisos in place, Cedar Farm represents a suitable and beneficial location for employment development that can support the local economy while protecting the environmental quality of Flimwell.
Sites 6 and 7 — Land at Cherry Tree Fields & Land at Steelands Farm, Flimwell
Approve, subject to the provision of a safe pedestrian footpath
Sites 6 and 7 form a natural cluster on the eastern side of Flimwell, close to the primary school and served by a network of minor roads. In principle, both sites represent appropriate locations for modest residential development, provided that a critical pedestrian safety issue is addressed.
At present, pedestrians approaching the village from the east — including schoolchildren — must use the one way section of the B2087, which has no footway. This creates a hazardous route at all times of day, but particularly during school drop off and pick up periods when traffic levels are highest.
To make development at Sites 6 and 7 safe and sustainable, it is essential that a new footpath is provided behind the Cherry Tree public house, linking through to Tinkers Lane. This would:
• remove the need for pedestrians to use the un footpathed one way section of the B2087,
• provide a safe and direct walking route to the primary school,
• improve connectivity to village facilities, and
• ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing safety risks.
With this footpath secured as a condition of allocation, Sites 6 and 7 can be supported as suitable locations for new housing that integrate well with the village and improve pedestrian safety for existing and future residents.
Site 8 — Orchard Farm, Ticehurst
Suitable only for limited development, subject to resolution of key constraints
This site may be suitable for a limited and carefully designed development, but only if two significant constraints are fully addressed.
First, the site lies immediately adjacent to ancient woodland, which forms an important ecological asset and supports a well established wildlife habitat. Any development must avoid encroachment on this woodland and must include robust measures to protect the root protection areas, habitat corridors, and the wider ecological function of the site. Without such safeguards, the proposal would cause unacceptable environmental harm.
Second, the sewage infrastructure serving this part of Ticehurst is currently inadequate. The neighbouring recent development at Lower St Mary’s has been affected by persistent sewage capacity problems, with repeated failures reported by residents. Until these issues are fully resolved and the system demonstrably upgraded to accommodate additional load, it would be inappropriate to introduce further dwellings that would exacerbate an already compromised network.
If — and only if — these two constraints are satisfactorily addressed, a small scale, sensitively designed scheme could be considered appropriate. However, the scale and layout of any development must be tightly controlled to ensure that:
• the ancient woodland is fully protected,
• ecological connectivity is maintained, and
• the upgraded sewage system can reliably support the additional homes.
Subject to these conditions, the site may have potential for limited development, but it should not be allocated for housing unless the environmental and infrastructure constraints are demonstrably resolved.
Site 9 — Land at Lymden Lane, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Lymden Lane is a narrow rural road with no footways, limited passing places, and poor visibility. Pedestrians — including children walking to the primary school — are forced to walk in the carriageway. There is no safe or practical opportunity to provide a footpath due to the tight boundaries, hedgerows, and the rural character of the lane.
As a result, there is no safe pedestrian route from the site to the school or the village centre. Any development here would increase pedestrian and vehicle movements on a road that is already hazardous, particularly at school times.
The site also forms part of the natural drainage catchment feeding the pond at the Acorns development. Altering this land risks disrupting established drainage patterns and could increase surface water problems both on site and downstream.
In addition, Stonegate suffers from long standing sewage capacity issues, with repeated failures affecting properties across the village. Until the system is comprehensively upgraded, it cannot support additional dwellings.
Given the combination of unsafe access, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, drainage sensitivity, and inadequate sewage capacity, Site 9 is not suitable for allocation.
Site 10 — Land east of Bardown Road, Stonegate
Object
I object to the allocation of this site. Like Site 9, it is served by narrow, un footpathed rural lanes — Bardown Road and Lymden Lane — both of which carry fast moving traffic and offer no safe walking route to the primary school or village centre. There is no realistic prospect of providing a footway without fundamentally altering the rural character of the area or requiring land that is not available.
The site itself is small and constrained, with limited space for parking and turning. Vehicles would likely need to reverse onto Lymden Lane, creating an unacceptable highway safety hazard on an already narrow and busy rural road.
Stonegate’s sewage infrastructure remains inadequate, with known capacity problems affecting existing residents. Adding further dwellings would place additional pressure on a system that is already failing.
Taken together — the unsafe pedestrian environment, the highway safety risks, the site specific access constraints, and the ongoing sewage capacity failures — Site 10 is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
In conclusion, my comments are offered in the spirit of supporting a fair, evidence based Local Plan that meets genuine local need while safeguarding the qualities that make our parish distinctive. I recognise the pressures on the authority to deliver new homes, and I do not oppose development where it is appropriate, sustainable, and properly supported by infrastructure. My concern is simply that each site is assessed on its merits, with full regard to landscape, ecology, access, drainage, and the lived realities of the communities affected. If these principles are applied consistently, the resulting Plan will serve both current residents and future generations well.
Yours faithfully,

I would like to support policy FW3 at Cedar Farm, Flimwell. This would make an excellent local business site, as there are redundant farm buildings on the A21 corridor, which would convert to business use, as has happened successfully at Swallows Oast, Pashley Rd, Ticehurst and at Wallcrouch again with redundant farm buildings. These converted sites provide local employment for over 50 people.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 56, 59, 61, 64, 65, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 56, 59, 61, 64, 65, 68 and 69.

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 56, 59, 61, 64, 65, 68 and 69.

Please see attached site assessment document by Ticehurst Parish Council regarding proposed allocated sites within the parish, including site plans.

Assessment of:
01 – Cherry Tree Nursery , The smokery and land to the north. Flimwell - Policy FW2
02 - Junction of London Road and A268 north - Policy FW2
03 - Land to the south of A268, Flimwell - Policy FW2
04 - Land to the north of Fruitfields, Flimwell - Policy FW1
05 - Cedar Farm, Hastings Road, Flimwell - Policy FW3
06 - Land to rear of Cherry Tree Public House - Policy TC1
07 – Land at Steelands Farm - Policy TC1
08 – Orchard Farm, Ticehurst - Policy TC2
09 – Land at Lymden Lane, Stonegate - Policy SG1
10 – Land east of Bardown Road, Stonegate - Policy SG2