Support
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 28716
Received: 18/02/2026
Respondent: NHS Sussex
At this stage, we do not have evidence of additional specific sites that should be allocated beyond those already identified in the draft Local Plan. It is, however, essential that any new allocations or changes to existing sites continue to consider supporting infrastructure, particularly Primary Care provision, to ensure that healthcare services can accommodate additional patients.
At this stage, we do not have evidence of additional specific sites that should be allocated beyond those already identified in the draft Local Plan. It is, however, essential that any new allocations or changes to existing sites continue to consider supporting infrastructure, particularly Primary Care provision, to ensure that healthcare services can accommodate additional patients.
Object
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 28947
Received: 03/03/2026
Respondent: Mr Nick Marsh
These sites will rapidly deteriorate with no contribution to the local community. The traveller sites should be scrapped unless they are rented from the council and kept clean with proper sewage, waste and amenities provide at cost the inhabiter.
These sites will rapidly deteriorate with no contribution to the local community. The traveller sites should be scrapped unless they are rented from the council and kept clean with proper sewage, waste and amenities provide at cost the inhabiter.
Object
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 29968
Received: 22/03/2026
Respondent: Mr Sebastian Fowle
No there are no sites suitable for gypsies in battle .
No there are no sites suitable for gypsies in battle .
Object
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 30218
Received: 23/03/2026
Respondent: Ms Louise Page
Not Rother - stick to the outskirts of London.
Not Rother - stick to the outskirts of London.
Support
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 30414
Received: 23/03/2026
Respondent: Mr Francois Mvelle
Yes. We all deserve a dissent place to live. Looking at the plan / project, it could be done if there is a will to do so. People need a place to leave and raise their families.
Yes. We all deserve a dissent place to live. Looking at the plan / project, it could be done if there is a will to do so. People need a place to leave and raise their families.
Support
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 31199
Received: 23/03/2026
Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
TWBC does not wish to comment on this policy.
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.
Object
Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
Representation ID: 31231
Received: 23/03/2026
Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields
The policy should include the requirement that the sites should not be on protected landscapes. Currently the allocation of gypsy sides is being abused. The site at Pashley Road in Ticehurst is a clear example.
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.