Local Plan Supporting Evidence Base Documents

Comment

Representation ID: 26543

Received: 20/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association

BUR0020. The Nutrition Centre (Higher Nature), Goodsoal Lane. (Potential site)

2.4 Since this draft of the Local Plan was written, the site has been sold to ENN Recycling Ltd and will continue in commercial use under the new owner. According to the HELAA this is Rother DC’s preferred use for the site. Rother DC will need to establish what plans the new owners have for the development of the site and whether the HELAA assumption of residential development (3 dwellings) remains realistic.

Comment

Representation ID: 26544

Received: 20/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association

BUR0027. Land south of Heathfield Road, Burwash Common. (Potential site)

2.5 We do not support the development of this site for housing.

2.6 This is a greenfield site which is well outside the current Burwash Common development boundary. Development of the site would be an unwelcome incremental step towards ribbon development of the green space between Burwash Common and Broad Oak which Rother DC has previously said that it is anxious to avoid.

2.7 We share the Highway Authority concerns about visibility and footway provision noted in the HELAA.

2.8 This site also has to be considered in the context of one of the rejected sites (BUR0017, Linkway Field, Burwash Common) which has been the subject of multiple recent planning applications, the two most recent being for housing development. The first of these (RR/2023/569/PIP) was rejected by Rother DC and is currently the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. A second proposal for housing development on the site (RR/ 2024/745/PIP) is opposed by Burwash Parish Council but has still to be considered by Rother DC. In our view, if BUR0027 is earmarked for housing, it substantially weakens the case for resisting development on the Linkway Field. Both sites are outside the Burwash Common development boundary, with BUR0027 being significantly further outside than BUR0017. Both sites have similar topography, and both are wholly within the High Weald National Landscape. If Rother DC feels that developing the Linkway Field “would have a harmful impact on the landscape and character of the High Weald National Landscape” then it is very difficult to see how the same argument does not apply equally to BUR0027?

Comment

Representation ID: 26545

Received: 20/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association

BUR0034. Land at Burnt House Farm, Burwash Weald. (Potential site)

2.9 We agree that this site is not suitable for residential development for the reasons set out in the HELAA. We accept that the site may be suitable in principle for small-scale employment use within certain constraints.

2.10 It should be pointed out that there are inaccuracies in the HELAA description. Firstly, there is no dwelling on the site. The current owner tried to get permission for a brick barn with a chimney to be turned into a dwelling, but planning permission was “not processed” (RR/2008/623/P). Secondly, the potential area highlighted on the HELAA map is not accurate because it includes the garage of a neighbouring property and the short drive to it.

2.11 Whether the site can support additional employment and how that is best done requires careful consideration. Burnt House Farm is a conservation area and needs to be protected. The current footprint should not be increased. It is essential that any changes are not visible across the Dudwell valley.

2.12 Access is a problem. The long private access road referred to in the HELAA is private and there is believed to be a covenant on the land which prevents vehicles from the site from using the lane. It may be necessary to establish a new entrance to the site which minimises dangers to vehicles and pedestrians at the point of exit to the A265.

2.13 Some of the properties adjacent to the site have been subject to recent flooding. Neighbours have built storm drains, but any commercial development of the site itself which involves additional areas of tarmac will increase water run-off and worsen the flooding problems.

2.14 Before any development can be contemplated, the site needs to be cleared of all the rubbish that has been dumped and buried by the present owner over several years. Because of the nature of the dumping, the site may also require decontamination. Action on this lies firmly with the Enforcement Officer at Rother DC who, to date, has been unwilling to implement existing Enforcement Notices.

Comment

Representation ID: 26546

Received: 20/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Common and Weald Residents Association

‘Rejected’ sites in Burwash Common and Burwash Weald

2.15 The following sites listed in the HELAA (BUR0004, BUR0015, BUR0016, BUR0017, BUR0018, BUR0021, BUR0023, BUR0028 and BUR0033) are considered to be ‘rejected’ sites, in that they are currently regarded as unsuitable, unavailable or unachievable for development. We note this but reserve the right to comment in future should the designation of any of these sites change for any reason.