Rother District Council

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 30

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 28860

Representation ID: 29275

Received: 12/03/2026

Respondent: Mary Varrall

Representation Summary:

SG1 would be acceptable if treated sensitively. SG2 too large and unsustainable in this village.

Full text:

SG1 would be acceptable if treated sensitively. SG2 too large and unsustainable in this village.

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29438

Received: 16/03/2026

Respondent: Nicholas Davies

Representation Summary:

Objections under the public consultation to the Proposed Site Allocation SG2 in Stonegate adjacent to the Bardown Road:
- Proposed Density & Site Sustainability
- Site Accessibility
- Groundwater
- Landscape Significance and Bio-diversity
- Services & Adjoining Uses
- Archaeology

Full text:

My property in The Acorns and rear garden area immediately abuts the open southern field boundary of the proposed site allocation SG2. I and others abutting the site would be adversely and materially impacted by any such site allocation for development. I believe the proposed allocation fails to meet a number of Rother’s own planning policy and criteria for inclusion and has failed to give sufficient weight to a number of site constraints on development or to the sustainability aspects of the proposed site allocation. I have not met a single person in Stonegate yet at any of the public consultations that supports the inclusion of this site.

Background Topography and Surrounding Site Context
The Acorns was designed and built in a traditional Kent/Sussex vernacular on a former brownfield site (a former plant hire yard) in 1988. It incorporated TPO’d trees, mature Oaks and was shaped around the retention of an existing historic natural pond at its centre. The Pond is a survivor of 4 ponds that once existed on The Acorns shown on the historic OS map survey of 1874. The density and layout of The Acorns was dictated by these constraints when it was designed, forming a soft and seamless transition into the open countryside to the north on much higher ground with open and permeable boundaries to the proposed site allocation SG2. This transition is successful because of the significant change in level in the site topography between the rear gardens of the easternmost properties in the Acorns and the land SG2 above. The land rises steadily eastwards on this boundary, so the difference between the field boundary level above and my immediate outside garden level below is 3.5 metres. At some time in history this dramatic change in level would have been created by activity for clay winning, mining or quarrying which is the pattern in the Weald as it is not a natural feature and would explain the existence of the many ponds that once existed here. When viewed from the field SG2 my property is sunk down by a storey and and a half into the landscape and so has little visual impact when viewed from the north. Viewed from the house however, the field is level with my first floor windows. The sudden change in level here is maintained by terraced retaining walls and the steep tree’d embankment in the garden on my property. Any proposed development on the field adjacent could therefore look down into my private amenity space, dominate the skyline and reduce the vertical sky component (VSC) for daylighting that I have benefitted from for 28 years. Necessary higher fencing associated with securing the privacy of the open boundary from any future development would of course only exacerbate this. The preliminary landscape assessment and site description in the proposed allocation fails to acknowledge or pick up on any of the differing site topography on its southern boundary and perversely suggests development would be better suited here on the highest ground furthest from the proposed access on Bardown Road?

Proposed Density & Site Sustainability
The proposed density of 35 dwellings per hectare to generate 20 dwellings is not representative of the built density that prevails anywhere else in Stonegate. By Rother’s own criteria higher densities in villages are justified in village centres in close proximity to public transport, shops and local services. This is not applicable here. Stonegate is not a service village. Curiously this density is applied to only half the site without any robust analysis to determine where that half might be other than a suggestion that it should be contained in the southern and eastern parts? Justification for higher densities by Rother’s own criteria is within 1600 metres of stations or 800 metres of frequent bus services. We have no bus service in Stonegate and the station is 1.2 miles by road or 1930 metres to the closest possible site entry point on Bardown Road. Proposed development on the allocated site might therefore be over 2000 metres distant. It therefore fails this suitability test. Travel to the station is car dependant as the road access is rural and has no road markings, footway or lighting. Higher densities are most commonly found in the centres of historic settlements not on the edges.

I have read the Draft Site Density study parts 1 & 2 produced by Rother in 2024 & 2026 in support of higher densities for site allocations. Tellingly, none of the contemporary best practice development examples used to justify density assumptions are taken from a Kent or Sussex Rural Wealden context and appear largely urban in character. In addition, the Historic examples from villages in Sussex, whilst they might illustrate appropriate building typologies, fail to include any car parking analysis associated with them. I regard this omission as deeply flawed if used for comparison purposes with their contemporary examples. This is not a robust planning argument for higher densities on the edge of historic settlements. The proposed site is entirely car dependant and not sustainable.

Site Accessibility
The proposed site entrance on Bardown Road would be located outside the current village 30mph limit. Sight lines for this access might be as much as 2.4 metres (X) x 90 metres (Y) northwards depending on traffic surveys requiring large sections of the hedgerow abutting the highway to be removed. Whilst extending the 30mph limit northwards to include the proposed site might reduce the Y forward visibility distance to 43 metres in each direction, this would still result in a significant loss of hedgerow on the western boundary. The importance of retaining and reinforcing landscaping on this sensitive edge has however already been highlighted by Rother.

It would not even be possible to connect the proposed site to the local primary school by footway as there is no pavement to the Bardown Road nor the means of providing it at the junction pinch point at the centre of the village. There is insufficient Highways land width available at this location to provide this footpath connectivity without a traffic light controlled single carriageway.

Groundwater
One of the principal objections I have to this proposed site allocation is the profound impact it would have on the natural water supply to the pond in the Acorns which is its central feature and jointly owned by me with my neighbours. The pond, as previously noted, is historic. It derives its water supply from underground springs from the catchment area of the proposed site allocation, a protected Sandstone outcrop (a ‘Special to Sussex’ habitat) and partly within a source protection zone. Ground water from the proposed site allocation percolates through fissures in the clay and subsurface sandstone beds and runs down to the pond through the subsoil of our rear garden in land drains. This was evident when the pond was de-silted some years ago. The pond, even in severe periods of drought has never dried up, because it has this constant underground supply from the land above. When I first moved to the house the rear garden was not terraced and springs would often form on the bank in prolonged wet weather. These are now directed into the pond via land drainage that was installed when the garden was landscaped and terraced twenty years ago.

I believe that any proposed development would change and interrupt the water supply that derives from this site by altering the water table. The necessary groundworks for foundations, access roads and drainage associated with development would undoubtedly alter the subsurface hydrology of the field site and jeopardise the outflows from it. The water falling previously on open land would be captured on new buildings and hard surfaces to be diverted away into surface water drainage systems. SUDs would not mitigate this as they are designed to capture and slow down rapid run-off into surface water systems. The pond as well as being a beautiful visual asset is a significant wildlife asset.

Landscape Significance and Bio-diversity
The proposed site is greenfield so I oppose its inclusion on principle. Prominent in the Wealden landscape it is located on the highest ground adjacent to the village built envelope. In the previous landscape assessment it was described by Rother as “visually exposed (with long views to the west only partially obscured by hedge) and of rural character”. The proposed access would result in the loss of hedgerow and the suggestion is that any development should be on the south and eastern sections of the site which are on the highest ground so by definition appearing above the hedgerow in long views from the west? Its development would be harmful to the surrounding landscape, hydrology and would result in the loss of habitat with negative impacts on the existing biodiversity. Once lost this will never be regained.

The pond in The Acorns supports a prolific array of bird life, amphibians, aquatic life and insect life. In my time I have seen grass snakes, kingfishers and other rare species using it. In the summer we have many types of dragonflies which appear in the garden to feed from the pond. I have planted, maintained and improved it with my neighbours over more than twenty years. Its connectivity to the wider landscape through the permeable open boundaries to the north are the key for its survival and its importance for the bio-diversity we enjoy.

The dark sky environment with the mature trees on the proposed allocation site supports bat colonies who in turn feed at dusk from the prolific insect life on the pond. Owls and other small raptors predate rodents and small mammals on the field and roost in the trees at night with woodpeckers and many other species of birds benefitting from the existing mature trees and hedgerows. It is this landscape interconnectivity which is part of an holistic relationship with the proposed allocation site which provides these wildlife corridors through the permeable boundaries and is at risk of loss here. No amount of proposed nett gain on paper could ever compensate for the physical loss.

Whilst the High Weald AONB Management Plan has very well intentioned policies for dark sky mitigation, the reality is that a development located here and silhouetted at night on very much higher ground will be negative and harmful. Multiple lit windows after dark from a higher density development and light spill from outdoor security lighting cannot be avoided and in reality would not be enforced against by Rother once development is built.

Services & Adjoining Uses
The proposed site has three overhead high voltage cables owned by UKPN which cross the site from the northwest to the south east and roughly dissect the proposed site midway. The cables then only divert underground immediately on my easternmost rear boundary with the pole stays on my land. These would need to be placed underground across the site for any development to take place in their vicinity.

Despite living close to one of the largest reservoirs in the south east, ironically we still suffer from very low water pressure. I also understand the provision of surface water treatment for sewerage at the Stonegate site is at capacity already. The current infrastructure would not support additional dwellings without network reinforcement.

The small quarry site adjoining the north west boundary of the proposed site is used by a company for processing, crushing and loading aggregates. The noise from this process is sometimes obtrusive, sheltered as I am by the topography and at some distance in the landscape. It would however create an unsatisfactory adjacent planning use for any proposed residential development at higher level on the proposed site.

Archaeology
I note that Rother confirm, were this site ever to come forward it is recommended that an Archaeology report is prepared in relation to its proximity to the identified Bardown Roman ironworks site 300 metres to the North. (Mistakenly referred to as an Arachnological report in Rother’s assessment - a typographic error I believe). As I have periodically turned up examples of iron bloomery deposits from my own garden embankment, I would support any such initiative.

Conclusions
When Site SG2 was excluded from development in the 2016 - 2028 Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan it was for very good reasons, Nothing has changed since apart from increased pressure from central government to bring forward more sites. Officers drafting the emerging Draft Local Plan may feel under significant pressure to put forward the maximum number of sites knowing some on examination will fall away as unsuitable. I believe that a measured assessment of the suitability of this site taking into consideration all policy criteria would prove that to be the case here. I have set out above what I believe are very sound planning and policy reasons why this site should be excluded from the proposed site allocations and would urge Officers to relook at the criteria and justification behind this site. I hope they will reach the same conclusion as I and many others have after careful consideration of all the evidence.

Attachments:

Objection to Local Plan - Final Draft_Public.pdf (4.62 MB)

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29547

Received: 16/03/2026

Respondent: Rob Lansdowne

Representation Summary:

I object to site SG2 in Stonegate. My home sits directly opposite the site the development would significantly harm the rural character of the village and the surrounding HWNL. The site is elevated, visually exposed and would require the removal of hedgerows, permanently altering the countryside. The suggested housing density is inappropriate for a small rural settlement like Stonegate, which lacks services and relies heavily on private cars. There is no regular bus service, the station is over a mile away along unsafe rural roads, and there are no pavements for pedestrians. Access onto Bardown Road raises serious highway safety concerns. Local infrastructure—including water pressure and wastewater capacity—is already constrained. The site also forms part of an important ecological network, with wildlife habitats and dark skies that would be harmed by development. The site is crossed by high voltage power lines and lies within an area of archaeological sensitivity.

Full text:

I am writing to formally object to the proposed site allocation SG2 adjacent to Bardown Road in Stonegate within the Emerging Rother Local Plan 2025–2042.
My property is located opposite the proposed site and therefore any development would have a direct and material impact on our home, local environment and the character of the village.
In my opinion, the proposed allocation fails to adequately consider several important planning principles including sustainability, landscape impact, infrastructure capacity, biodiversity, and highway safety. For the reasons outlined below, I strongly believe that the site should not be included as a housing allocation in the emerging Local Plan.
1. Character of the Village and Landscape Impact
Stonegate is a small rural village within the High Weald landscape, characterised by low-density housing, mature trees, hedgerows and open countryside.
The proposed site is greenfield land located on elevated ground at the edge of the settlement, making it highly visible within the surrounding landscape. Development on this site would significantly alter the rural setting of the village and create an urbanising effect in an otherwise open and sensitive landscape.
Previous assessments have recognised the land as being visually exposed and of rural character, with views extending across the wider countryside. Development in this location would therefore be highly intrusive and detrimental to the landscape character that defines the area.
The loss of hedgerows and natural boundaries required for access and visibility splays would further erode the rural character of this location.
Once this landscape is lost, it cannot realistically be restored.
2. Unsuitable Housing Density for a Rural Settlement
The proposed density of 35 dwellings per hectare to achieve approximately 20 houses is not reflective of the existing built form of Stonegate.
Housing within the village is generally low density and dispersed, which is typical of settlements within the High Weald.
Higher density housing is typically considered appropriate only in locations that are close to services, public transport and village centres. The proposed site does not meet these criteria.
Stonegate is not a service village and residents rely heavily on private vehicles for daily activities.
The proposed development would therefore represent overdevelopment of a rural edge-of-village site, inconsistent with the existing settlement pattern.
3. Lack of Sustainable Transport Options
One of the key tests for site suitability is accessibility to public transport and services.
The proposed site fails to meet these sustainability criteria:
• Stonegate has no regular bus service.
• The railway station is approximately 1.2 miles away by road, and significantly further from the likely site entrance.
• The route to the station is along narrow rural roads with no pavements, road markings or street lighting.
This means residents would be entirely dependent on private cars, which contradicts the principles of sustainable development promoted within planning policy.
4. Highway Safety Concerns
The proposed access onto Bardown Road raises serious concerns.
The site access would be located outside the current 30mph speed limit, where vehicles regularly travel at higher speeds.
Achieving adequate visibility splays for a junction would likely require significant removal of existing hedgerows, which are important landscape and ecological features.
Furthermore, there is no safe pedestrian route connecting the site to the centre of the village or the primary school, as there are no pavements along Bardown Road and insufficient highway width to provide one without major road alterations.
This raises concerns regarding pedestrian safety, particularly for children travelling to school.
5. Infrastructure Capacity
Stonegate already experiences limitations in local infrastructure.
There are known concerns regarding:
• Water pressure in the area
• Wastewater treatment capacity
• General infrastructure provision for a rural settlement
It is unclear how existing infrastructure would accommodate additional housing without significant upgrades, which have not been clearly identified.
Allocating housing without first ensuring adequate infrastructure capacity would place additional strain on existing services.
6. Biodiversity and Ecology
The proposed site currently forms part of an important local ecological network, consisting of:
• Open fields
• Mature hedgerows
• Trees
• Dark sky habitat
These features support a wide range of wildlife including birds, bats, insects and small mammals.
Development would inevitably lead to the loss or fragmentation of these habitats, even if mitigation measures were proposed.
Whilst biodiversity net gain policies exist, they cannot fully replace the established ecological relationships and wildlife corridors currently present within the landscape.
Additionally, the introduction of residential lighting would have a negative impact on the dark sky environment, which is an important feature of the High Weald landscape.
7. Overhead Power Infrastructure
The site is also crossed by high voltage overhead electricity cables, which would likely require relocation or undergrounding to enable development.
This represents an additional constraint and would involve further disturbance to the landscape.
8. Archaeological Sensitivity
The area surrounding the site is known to contain historic archaeological features, including the nearby Bardown Roman ironworks site.
Any development would therefore require archaeological investigation, which further highlights the sensitivity of this location.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed allocation SG2 at Bardown Road is not a suitable location for residential development.
The site:
• Is visually prominent within the landscape
• Is poorly connected to services and public transport
• Raises highway safety concerns
• Risks harm to biodiversity and dark skies
• Would place additional pressure on local infrastructure
Stonegate is a small rural settlement and development of this scale and density would fundamentally change the character of the village.
I therefore strongly urge Rother District Council to remove Site SG2 from the proposed site allocations within the Emerging Local Plan.

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29549

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29650

Received: 18/03/2026

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Full text:

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Attachments:

East Sussex County Council Representations (3.76 MB)

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29716

Received: 19/03/2026

Respondent: Anne Scoones

Representation Summary:

SG1 - Lymden Lane is very narrow in parts, traffic travels too fast, the road surface is in poor condition.
The site plan indicates the planning area includes the next door property- entrance and gateway to the fields behind.
In the short term if planning were to proceed I can not see how there would be space for construction vehicles
SG2 - 20 houses would have too great an environmental impact.
Stonegate has no amenities/village shop etc. The roads leading in and out of the village are narrow and/or subsiding.
The water pressure drops at peak times. The sewage treatment works can not cope with the current population and spills effluent down the stream. I will not let my dogs enter it.
There is no pavement associated with either development. There are bats, owls and other protected species in the village.

Full text:

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29798

Received: 19/03/2026

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

Representation Summary:

SG1 and SG2 are unsuitable due to remoteness, lack of services, parking issues and difficult access. These sites cannot support sustainable development.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Representation (154.36 KB)

Full text:

Objections to the Proposed Site SG2 in Stonegate, in the Draft Local Plan 2025-2042, under Regulation 18 Consultation: Development Strategy and Site Allocations.

We, [names redacted] owners of [address redacted], Stonegate since 1994, whose property lies immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of field SG2, object to the proposed development for the following reasons. Please note that we have summarized our objections since many of them have already been raised in detail by others.

Historically the site has been considered for housing development by Rother District Council in 2011. The site was rejected at that time. Nothing has changed in terms of the criteria against which development was considered, but we acknowledge that the government is encouraging local authorities to identify more sites for housing development. We argue that to approve the site for development now it would be necessary to erode the standards and criteria that have already been applied to consideration of the site. This erosion of standards would be irreversible and damaging to the established ecosystems both on the site and within the neighboring Acorns.

Visual intrusion and damage to the landscape – the site topography rises significantly from the east of Bardown Road making a housing development highly intrusive when entering Stonegate from Wadhurst. This impact would be compounded by the necessary removal of the long-established hedgerow on SG2 along Bardown Road (for sight lines necessary for vehicle access to the site SG2).

Negative impact of the development on complex water tables and geology across the site SG2 and changes in the run-off of stormwater from the development.

Sustainability challenges posed by the proposed development.
• Potable water supplies at The Acorns are already subject to low pressure and wider network failures. Adding the housing development will exacerbate this situation.
• Overload of wastewater from the existing Stonegate community has necessitated construction of a holding tank at the wastewater treatment plant, indicating likely overload of the existing wastewater system and potential lack of capacity for an additional development.
• The above potable and wastewater issues combine with stormwater run off and water table issues to make the entire water cycle a complex problem at the proposed development.
• There is no footpath along Bardown Road, making the route to the school unsafe for children, and adults, from the new development.
• Stonegate has no shopping amenities with residents having to drive to Wadhurst or beyond for daily and weekly provisions. The development would add to the road traffic generated by this issue.
• The main railway station is over a mile away from the development, along a steep, unlit road with no footpaths. Again, the use of a car to get to the station is essential, with the development traffic adding to this.
• Other amenity issues such as overload of doctors’ surgeries in Wadhurst, school capacity, lack of any bus service to Stonegate etc. have been raised by others, which all raise questions against the sustainability of adding a new development to an already amenity challenged community.

The above points are raised to complement the issues that we see with the proposed development. Other local residents have expressed similar and other concerns in greater detail.

We understand the pressure to identify potential housing development sites, but we also trust that the standards and criteria seen fit to reject site SG2 in 2011 should be applied now, and not watered down to allow approval of a site carrying multiple sustainability, visual, safety and engineering challenges.

Thank you for your time in reading and considering the above.

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 30777

Received: 20/03/2026

Respondent: Chris and Diana Simmons

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Objections to the Proposed Site SG2:
1. This proposed development on field SG2, a green field site lying within National Landscapes, will have an adverse impact on the landscape in Stonegate.
2. It will have a damaging effect on the local groundwater supply, undermine the ecology of field SG2 and the pond in The Acorns and destroy the current biodiversity in field SG2 and the pond in The Acorns.
3. Any development in Stonegate as a whole lacks sustainability.
4. Any development of field SG2 will impact the night sky negatively, even with light pollution strategies in place.

Full text:

Objections to the Proposed Site SG2 in Stonegate, in the Draft Local Plan 2025 - 2042, under Regulation 18 Consultation: Development Strategy and Site Allocations.

We, Chris and Diana Simmons owners and residents on The Acorns, Stonegate, whose property lies immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of field SG2, object to its development for the following reasons;

1. This proposed development on field SG2, a green field site lying within National Landscapes, will have an adverse impact on the landscape in Stonegate.
2. It will have a damaging effect on the local groundwater supply, undermine the ecology of field SG2 and the pond in The Acorns and destroy the current biodiversity in field SG2 and the pond in The Acorns.
3. Any development in Stonegate as a whole lacks sustainability.
4. Any development of field SG2 will impact the night sky negatively, even with light pollution strategies in place.

To explain further;

This proposed development on field SG2, a green field site lying within National Landscapes, will have an adverse impact on the landscape in Stonegate.

Whilst it is not immediately apparent on first observation of the field SG2, the topography of the land rises progressively to the east of Bardown Road and the field SG2 dominates its immediate surroundings. Any development of this field will be visually prominent on entering Stonegate from Wadhurst as the existing hedging will inevitably need to be removed in order to provide vehicular access and clear sight lines on to Bardown Road, resulting in a development not in keeping with National Landscapes.

The Acorns is comprised of 6 properties nestled in a dip in the ground below field SG2 and adjacent to its southern boundary. For us personally, field SG2, occupies a raised and prominent position above our back garden. This back boundary adjacent to field SG2 is in fact the most favourable position in our whole garden, where the light is most propitious and where we have located our kitchen garden with raised beds and a greenhouse, thereby utilising the rise in land at the rear of our property advantageously. Any development in the field SG2 will inevitably overbear into our back garden and affect the amount and quality of daylight incident upon our kitchen garden. This intrusion into our privacy will then necessitate the placement of privacy screening along our back boundary abutting field SG2, which will further restrict the daylight incident upon these beds and will undermine the viability of the kitchen garden and the usefulness of our greenhouse. However, even with privacy screening along our rear boundary, any development in the field SG2 will inevitably be extremely visible from our properties and any properties on field SG2 will have vistas straight into our back gardens and back rooms.

It will have a damaging effect on the local groundwater supply, undermine the ecology of field SG2 and the pond in The Acorns and destroy the current biodiversity in field SG2 and the pond in The Acorns.

It is our understanding that when this site (currently SG2) was considered in 2011 (then described as ST1), it was rejected by Rother District Council as being unsuitable. We attach the file “Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment” (SHLAA) (see page 121) and refer you to map number 45 for Ticehurst, Flimwell and Stonegate TQ6929, which was used in a previous local plan in 2011 by Rother, identifying the field SG2 as ST1 at that time. There were several reasons for the rejection of this site, one of which was the Ground Water Protection Zone (GWPZ, now defined as Source Protection Zone, SPZ3) in the north west corner of the field which is still considered to be especially important due to the inflow of surface water from the field SG2 into the water table and thence ultimately into our water supply in Sussex. A sandstone outcrop which is special to Sussex habitat is also located in field SG2. Our belief is that by developing the field SG2 with new roads/drives and drainage into the main waste water, the run off into the SPZ will be detrimentally affected and will impact the water table. Moreover, any change in how the rainwater falling on the field SG2 is received and dealt with, will almost certainly affect the water supply to our pond in The Acorns, see more below. If we continue to experience drought and increasing climate change in the future as seems most likely, the way rainwater which falls on to field SG2 is treated, will become more and more significant not just for Stonegate, but for other local communities reliant on Ground Water for their water supply.

Furthermore we object on the basis that any development in field SG2 will negatively affect the water supply to our pond in The Acorns (which we co-own with the neighbours). This pond acts as a focal point of natural interest in The Acorns, but it is not the aesthetics of the pond which is at stake. What is of far greater importance is the ecology of the pond and how it provides habitat and food for a wide range of wildlife to include only a few examples; Damsel flies, Dragon flies numerous other insects, bats, amphibians and invertebrates. We believe that the run off from field SG2 supplies this pond either directly over the land surface or via water flow, percolating through the soil into the water table and that any interference or interruption to this supply will detrimentally affect its water level, possibly even causing it to dry up. We believe that a disturbance of the equilibrium in the pond’s water levels and quality would destroy the ecology and natural habitat in and around the pond, leading to an irreversible destruction in biodiversity there.

It is also important to point out that the field SG2 and its surroundings provides habitat for a diverse range of wildlife. Kestrels, Owls, Buzzards, Red Kite and Gold Crest have been observed over and in field SG2. Within our garden, butterflies such as Skipper, Comma, Painted Lady have been seen, not to mention slow worms which are always found close to our boundary with the field SG2. It is important to note that the presence of slow worms can be an indicator of a balanced ecosystem.

Of the species mentioned above at least four are Indicator Species; Dragon flies, Damsel flies, bats and slow worms, and of these, two are known to have Protected Status; bats and slow worms. Life cycles of the Dragon fly and Damsel fly include 1-2 years as aquatic nymphs living in the silt or within the submerged plants and algae in the pond, eventually emerging as adults. These adults can live for 1 – 8 weeks either becoming food for species such as bats or ultimately laying eggs in the pond to complete their life cycle. At dusk, bats habitually leave their roosts to circle around the pond and our houses to feed on the variety of insects including Dragon flies and Damsel flies. All of this points to a vast array of biodiversity in the pond which is interdependent on field SG2. We believe that any development of the field SG2 will result in the irrevocable destruction of the environment, the biodiversity and well established ecosystems which connect the pond in The Acorns to the field SG2 and vice versa.

On the basis of the foregoing we believe that if any development on field SG2 were to be seriously considered, an extensive ecological and biodiversity survey of field SG2 including the pond at The Acorns, must be commissioned in order to assess the full environmental impact of developing the field SG2.

Any development in Stonegate as a whole lacks sustainability.

Additional objections regarding future developments in Stonegate, East Sussex, which especially question the sustainability of any development in this village, are as follows;

 Clean water supply to the Acorns is known to be at a low pressure. (We have had instances of no water multiple times in recent years due to water bursts elsewhere further down the water supply.)
 A pavement from any development in the field SG2 to the village school will have to be built along Bardown Road in order to make it safe for children to walk to school as one is not in existence at present, but we question it’s feasibility due to the lack of available land.
 Highways will need to review the speed limit adjacent to the field SG2, which is currently set at National limit.
 The high voltage power lines which traverse the field SG2 diagonally will need to be diverted around field SG2 or be buried beneath it.
 Stonegate lacks general amenities; it merely has a primary school, Church, village hall, playing fields and a letter box. Residents invariably have to travel to main shopping hubs in order to access usual day to day commodities etc. or have them delivered to them. This will increase traffic on local access roads to Stonegate whose surfaces and integrity are already seriously compromised.
 The main line railway station is one mile away on an unlit road without a pavement. Similarly all bus services are over one mile away, again on an unlit road in the opposite direction, also without a pavement. Both roads carry vehicles with the potential to achieve national speed limit (60 mph). Consequently the local population are reliant on their own cars for transport and feel obliged to ferry their children around for their own safety. In a nutshell a car is an absolute necessity.
 As a consequence of the above, there is congestion at the crossroads in Stonegate village frequently and there is a general "pinch point" outside the village school at most times of the day which is particularly difficult when the schools are going in or coming out. Any housing developments in the Stonegate will exacerbate this.
 Does the school actually have capacity for more pupils? Does it have the physical space and sufficient teachers to deal with an increase in pupils?
 The local Doctor's surgery is over stretched and cannot cope with the current population. Furthermore the surgery premises in Ticehurst have had to be closed due to the building being condemned, so all patients are compelled to attend clinics at Wadhurst Surgery.
 Why build properties when several recently built nearby (at Burwash Common) remain unsold in addition to the adjacent 2 building plots?
 We understand that a holding tank has had to be placed at Stonegate waste water site in order to cope with waste water from the current population. This indicates that the current waste water infrastructure is already at capacity in Stonegate and will need to be restructured.

Any development of field SG2 will impact the night sky negatively, even with light pollution strategies in place

We also object to any development of field SG2 as it will impact our ability as human beings to observe the night sky. It will also interfere with habits of nocturnal wildlife, such as owls, bats and moths. We understand that Ticehurst aspires to achieving Dark Skies status. Sadly, in spite of any developer’s best efforts, building on plot SG2, even with a Dark Sky strategy, will certainly destroy any future opportunities to observe the night sky. To illustrate how it is possible to view the night sky in Stonegate, we were able to observe Comet Neowise in 2020 simply by looking from our boundary across field SG2 into the night sky, simply by using binoculars and a camera. See appended photograph.

As a final point, it is important to note that field SG2 has been previously rejected several times in earlier Local Plans and that nothing has changed since then to commend it for development.

In conclusion, we appreciate the heavy burden of responsibility which falls upon the individuals who are considering all these proposals and thank them for taking the time to read our objections which are made, not just for ourselves but for future generations to come.

Attachments:

Sites_Appendices.pdf (1.06 MB)
Photograph of Comet Neowise.png (246.40 KB)

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 30789

Received: 21/03/2026

Respondent: Peter Manning

Representation Summary:

I am a stonegate resident living close to the proposed development off bardown road stonegate. Whilst I do not think the proposed will directly affect me I am more concerned about the infrastructure in stonegate to support such developments.
There are currently no bus services (the nearest nearly 2 miles away). There is a train station but realistically can only drive to it (no footpaths and very few verges) so might as well be several miles away.
There are no shops, doctors or any other services in the village and whilst there is a village hall and a playing field they do not appear to be well used.
The sewage treatment works constantly has problems coping with the existing numbers and the water supply suffers from relatively low water pressure.
I am not sure the existing infrastructure would be able to cope with additional numbers without significant investment.

Full text:

I am a stonegate resident living close to the proposed development off bardown road stonegate. Whilst I do not think the proposed will directly affect me I am more concerned about the infrastructure in stonegate to support such developments.
There are currently no bus services (the nearest nearly 2 miles away). There is a train station but realistically can only drive to it (no footpaths and very few verges) so might as well be several miles away rather than the 1 mile).
There are no shops, doctors or any other services in the village and whilst there is a village hall and a playing field they do not appear to be well used.
The sewage treatment works constantly has problems coping with the existing numbers and the water supply suffers from relatively low water pressure.
I am not sure the existing infrastructure would be able to cope with additional numbers without significant investment in this infrastructure to support them.

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 30927

Site assessments by Ticehurst Parish Council (7.33 MB)

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 31276

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Rurban Estates Limited

Representation Summary:

Rurban Estates Limited supports the allocation of Site SG2.
The site:
 Is sustainably located in relation to the existing settlement;
 Is available and deliverable in the short term;
 Will contribute positively to rural vitality, including supporting local services such as schools; and
 Is supported in principle by key consultees, including the High Weald National Landscape Unit.

The ESCC response further reinforces that:
 Growth in rural villages such as Stonegate is both necessary and beneficial, particularly in maintaining
community infrastructure.

The allocation should therefore be:
 Retained within the Local Plan, and
 Refined where necessary, rather than restricted.

The recommended modifications set out above will ensure that the policy is:
 Flexible and deliverable;
 Consistent with a landscape-led approach; and
 Capable of supporting a high-quality form of development.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Rurban Estates_Regulation 18 Representations_SG2_Stonegate .pdf (2.13 MB)