I wish to add my comments to the above consultation. I found it virtually impossible to use the "comment"ing as you go section on the whole of your Land Plan document sadly. Way too big a document to view easily in one go especially for busy people!

I am against - BT1 - way too big and very visual especially as it is too close to the Blackfriars site which make ingress and access difficult. It is against the Battle Neighbourhood Plans recommendations of small Sites

• BT10 - for exactly the same reasons as above but also in such a dense number of houses, surrounded by large and ancient oaks and next to an Ancient Woodland, it will impact this and also stop a wildlife corridor that exists currently

I support Site BT8 because:

It will improve access from Hastings Road to the care-home, provide a useful pull-in point on a narrow section of lane, help with parking pressures, and address drainage problems that have affected this location for some time. The possible inclusion of live-work units is another positive feature, giving flexibility for small businesses and home working. Just as importantly, the site has been kept to a very modest scale. Around five dwellings is well below the numbers suggested in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, and that lower density shows a welcome commitment to a sensitive form of development rather than overdevelopment.

I support Site BT8 because it is a modest, well-screened and discreet site with 5 work/dwelling well-thought out development proposal, that would provide housing while also delivering wider community benefits. The site accommodates a limited development without appearing out of character, and is closely related to existing developments and is naturally well screened by nearby houses, the care home, and mature hedgerows. This means that a small residential scheme here could be integrated into the area in a way that respects local character and avoids unnecessary visual intrusion. It will be set back from the main boundary hedge in a circular form and the provision of the work/home buildings would be ideal in promoting a visual pleasing (in the local style recommended by BNP)

It will enhance the lives of others living around it as there will be better drainage (with permission already granted from the road owner to do this). The owners will also be laying all current overground cables underneath the road at their expense which will result in less power cuts for the end of land houses and also high speed cabling for high speed interconnection for every house, something that has not yet reached this neighbourhood

There are also strong practical reasons to support the site. The lane nearby often experiences congestion and limited passing space, and this development offers an opportunity to create a proper pull-in area and which will improve day-to-day access for residents along a long and narrow part of the lane that can cause problems for access. Additional parking provision and better drainage would also be important local gains when considering the overspill from parking at the Care Home, which hasn't been adequately resolved. The possibility of including live-work units adds further value by supporting more flexible living and employment patterns. Above all, I support the fact that the site has not been overdeveloped. The proposed number of homes is well below the numbers suggested in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, which demonstrates a restrained and responsible approach. For that reason, I believe BT8 is a suitable and beneficial site for inclusion.

I do imagine that people in the immediate locality will throw everything they can at stopping this site, but they really should have come to find out exactly what is being offered here [end of sentence redacted]. This site is certainly not the overdevelopment of cramming in as many houses as is feasible for monetary gain. The houses/workshops will also be as compliant with renewable energy, water storage/water havesting, ground source systems and the likes. I understand that roof tiles that are also solar panels would also be used so no ugly large solar panels that blight the countryside I'd like to move into one myself being totally honest!

I also support the inclusion of Gypsy and Traveller Site 1 at High Views. [Information on site occupiers redacted].

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

Consultation – Draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 Consultation

Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council (S&RPC) submits the comments below regarding the
consultation on Rother Draft Local Plan.

The Parish Council supports the vision of Rother Draft Local Plan (RDLP) to develop within the
unique environmental constraints of Rother district. We are however very concerned at the
numbers of houses proposed not just in Robertsbridge but in villages across the district, which
do not have the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed housing expansion.

With respect to sites in Salehurst Parish, we are broadly speaking in agreement with the
proposed sites. All these sites are included within our Salehurst & Robertsbridge
Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP), with the exception of the Open Field
site. However, the size of the sites has increased and we believe the 344 homes proposed
cannot be supported by our village infrastructure; this is a very substantial increase of 164 on
the 180 homes included in SRNDP.

We wish to make the following specific comments:

RBI Heathfield Gardens site - 35-40 homes in SRNDP, 65 are proposed in RDLP. The Parish
Council has no objection, subject to the usual planning rules.

RB2 Grove Farm site phase 1 - 30 homes in SRNDP. 32 have been approved and 32 are in RDLP.

RB3 Grove Farm site phase 2 - this area of the site was not included in SRNDP. 70 homes
included in RDLP. This is the site which most concerns the Parish Council. 70 homes on this
raised green field location will have an overwhelming impact on the village; this size of
development, added to the already approved area, will be out of proportion, and there are
concerns regarding the potential effect on infrastructure. For example, there is no current
capacity for drainage and potentially high impact on traffic flow in the village. George Hill is a
busy entrance / exit to the village, particularly at the start and end of the school day.

RB4 Vicarage site - 6-10 homes in SRNDP, 10 in RDLP. We already submitted our concerns about
the nature of the development proposed for this site.

RB5 Culverwells site (off Station Road) - 17 homes approved prior to SRNDP, 21 homes in RDLP
for which approval has been given.

RB6a Hodson’s Mill site - 85-100 in SRNDP, 96 in RDLP. We strongly support development on this
brown field site. This has widespread support amongst village residents, although developers
must minimise impact on traffic flow within the village.

RB6b Open Field site - Site not included in SRNP. 50 homes included in RDLP, which is at odds
with the 25 homes proposed by Homes England who own the site. The Parish Council does not
object to this site but is very concerned that the proposal for 50 dwellings is too many, given
potential impact on the High Weald National Landscape; development on this raised location
needs to be low rise.

Bishops Lane site - The Parish Council does not support development on this site which was not
included in SRDNP. We are pleased to see that it has not been included in the draft local plan.

In addition, there is a proposal in RDLP policy GYP5 to extend the existing Gypsy and Traveller
Site on Redlands Lane from 6 to 10 units. This in part regularises the fact that there are already
8 units on site, 10 units is the maximum we would support. It would be practical to offer the
additional units to members of the family who already live on site, and to provide access to the
site through the existing site entrance. We do not support a new second access point onto the
narrow country lane, as the wording in the RDLP seems to suggest.

Re: Concerns regarding the Rother District Council Local Plan Consultation

I am writing to submit my response to the draft Rother Local Plan and share some of the concerns raised with me by constituents, many of which I share. Far too often existing residents are asked to support more housing locally when they are not provided with the infrastructure that should come with it. Their access to public services like GP appointments is already challenging – they reasonably ask why they should welcome developments that will make it worse?

Given that the majority of constituents will have submitted their comments directly to Rother, I will not comment on each and every site which has been brought to my attention. As mentioned, the common concern is that current infrastructure – roads/transport, schools, access to primary healthcare and utilities – is already stretched across the district and cannot accommodate the scale and location of proposed development. Constituents are also concerned about the impact on the environment, flood risks and protection of the High Weald AONB and Pevensey from further development.

Infrastructure must be the starting point of any sustainable planning strategy. At present, residents feel that the proposed allocations are being driven by the Government’s housing targets, rather than a realistic assessment of what the area can safely and responsibly support. On that basis, I have written to the Housing Minister to highlight the challenges for Rother to deliver an unrealistic housing target within the tight constraints of available land given well over 80% is protected by AONB or SSSI status. I am also aware that as our housing targets are raised, the Government is lowering the targets for house building in London because they say they aren’t realistic. They aren’t realistic for our area either. There are specific concerns about the impact on the A259 of proposed housing development in West Bexhill. I share those concerns and I am supportive of any plans for a new road which would alleviate the volume of traffic in Little Common which is already a heavily used route and will be more so if further housing is delivered in this part of the town.

In Sidley, I share the community’s concerns about site BEX50 – Sidley Car Park, which has been identified for a possible 10 homes. Whilst I fully understand the need for quality housing in Sidley, I consider that losing parking spaces in this free car park would be bad for local businesses and would impact the hard work which has been done in recent years by East Sussex ounty Council and All Saints School to create
a road safety scheme. Parents are no longer permitted to drive into Saints Lane at school drop off and pick up times so use Sidley car park. The school also runs ‘walking bus’ from the car park to the school gates.

In addition to concerns raised about infrastructure, the following have also been noted:

1. Sites in Battle – proposed BT7 off North Trade Road would sit on flood zones. General concerns about further development in Battle include worsening of congestion on already heavily-used roads, consideration of ancient and historic woodland, Battle cannot support additional population pressure and traffic – its high street being regularly congested and heavy vehicles causing damage to ancient buildings.

2. North Bexhill (BA3) – overdevelopment of green space without supporting infrastructure.

3. Netherfield (GYP4) temporary sites being granted permanent status sets a precedent that people can purchase plots and commence development without planning permission I look forward to your response to the above concerns and how these will be taken forward in future versions of the Local Plan.