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

Object

Representation ID: 31312

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

See attachment "2026 Local Plan submission" for full representation.

Objections to BC1 due to: ancient field, harm to HWNL, prominent in wider landscape, ribbon development, loss of hedgerow, access and sustainability.

Support

Representation ID: 31313

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

See attachment "2026 Local Plan submission" for full representation.

BC2 is worthy of consideration due to: brownfield site, minimal harm to HWNL, enclosed site and infilling. However, potential threat to existing cafe. Loss of parking should be compensated on site. Potential highways objections from ESCC on current application.

One or more members of the group have visited all the HELAA 2024 and HELAA 2026 sites. The exercise which took a considerable amount of time confirmed the view that Rother District Council had taken about the other sites.

Object

Representation ID: 31314

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

The policy for reducing speed limits in villages to 20 mph is highly contentious. The advocates believe that the new speed limit will reduce road accidents and improve the quality of village life. Opponents believe the speed limits will not be adhered to, will generate inappropriate speeding tickets and have no impact on road accidents or the quality of life. Burwash: Save our Fields will leave this debate to others as the group would not be able to have a response that all members agree with.

Object

Representation ID: 31316

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

See attachment "2026 Local Plan submission" for full representation.

Appendix 2, the Glossary, should be removed.
Many of the entries are taken from the NPPF. Where the entry is different from the NPPF one must ignore the glossary and use the NPPF definition. As the Local Plan ages, more and more of the entries will be wrong, because statutory or NPPF or other central government documents have amended the definition. It is inevitable the glossary will already be wrong before it is published. The Draft Local Plan is intended to last till 2042. Many of the definitions will be entirely different by then.

Object

Representation ID: 31317

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

It is assumed that the question is meant to relate to the Sustainability Appraisal in the Interim consultation document of January 2026. The group is unaware of any Interim Sustainability Appraisal. In the document there is feedback on sustainability appraisal and habitat regulations. Surprisingly, the document does not list any feedback it only puts in one sentence details about the sections the planners have put the comments in. There is also one other sentence in the section that deals with the summary of the next steps.

Support

Representation ID: 31320

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

See attachment "2026 Local Plan submission" for full representation.

The group welcomes the inclusion of policy on Bewl Water in the Draft Local Plan. Rother District Council will be aware of the Duty to Cooperate. Rother District Council is invited to engage constructively with Wealden District Council so that both councils have the same policy on Bewl Water. Currently Wealden District Council has not announced that they will have a Bewl Water policy. Right the District Council is also invited to strengthen their policy on Bewl Water because as currently drafted it will not provide sufficient protection for Bewl Water.

The group draws the Rother District Council’s attention to the Northern Parishes group 35-page representation dated 10 June 2026. The group invites Rother District Council to reread that submission which would mean that the submission does not have to be included as part of the answer to question 69 above.

Object

Representation ID: 31321

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Burwash: Save our Fields

See attachment "2026 Local Plan submission" for full representation.

The need to protect the Burwash’s medieval landscape:

In the accompanying questionair the first question was, ‘Do you consider Burwash’s ancient field layout, woods and watercourses should receive greater protection from development?' Few questions receive such an emphatic answer. The medieval field layout of Burwash with its woods and watercourses is unique and is an important historical survivor which gives residents and visitors an environment of great beauty.

A report about Sussex’s Historic Landscape concluded that the parish of Burwash had the greatest landscape survival from the medieval period in East Sussex. The current planning rules provide no effective protection from inappropriate development. There should be a specific policy about this. The enhanced status would fit well with the protected land around Batemans. A significant proportion of the visitors go there so that they can walk in the spectacular countryside.