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

Support

Representation ID: 31193

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC does not wish to comment on this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 31194

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC does not wish to comment on this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 31195

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC notes that the proposed site allocations in Hurst Green would provide a total of 239 dwellings. TWBC questions whether Hurst Green is a suitable location to support such as high scale of development, given its lack of facilities.

Any development coming forward will need to consider any impacts on the adjacent land within the Tunbridge Wells borough area, and in terms of infrastructure provision with Kent County Council as well as East Sussex County Council.

Support

Representation ID: 31196

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC notes that the proposed site allocations in Flimwell would provide a total of 146 dwellings.

Any development coming forward will need to consider any impacts on the adjacent land within the Tunbridge Wells borough area, and in terms of infrastructure provision with Kent County Council as well as East Sussex County Council.

Support

Representation ID: 31197

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC strongly supports this policy and its criteria for development allowed at Bewl Water.

Support

Representation ID: 31198

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC does not wish to comment on these policies but notes that it considers that RDC should plan to provide sufficient site allocations to meet its needs based on the ethnic definition of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

Support

Representation ID: 31199

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC does not wish to comment on this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 31200

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC notes the updated Duty to Cooperate interim statement. TWBC also notes reference to the existing Statement of Common Ground between both authorities and will accordingly work with RDC on any required updates to this going forward particularly in regard to the issue of unmet housing need, and crossboundary infrastructure provision.

Support

Representation ID: 31201

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

The SA should clarify whether the development around Bexhill will work towards or set the framework for the sustainable transport corridor coming forward in the future, or at least not hinder its potential.

Object

Representation ID: 31202

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

See attached for full representation.

Residents in Northern Rother are likely to use services in TWBC and WDC. TWBC questions the numbers of new dwellings at Hurst Green, Flimwell and Burwash. The percentage of new dwellings at Etchingham and Robertsbridge is 45% of Norther Rother sub-area. TWBC question if there is scope for further development at Etchingham rather than some of the less sustainable villages.

TWBC also suggests that RDC should report on the car parking capacity at Etchingham, Stonegate and Robertsbridge stations. RDC should also set out a strategy for bus route connectivity to these railway stations.

TWBC welcomes that larger scale development at Merriments and Flimwell can provide improved ‘pedestrian connectivity’. Cross boundary consultation should focus on where these improved connections are going to take place.

TWBC notes that RDC applies an adopted CIL Charging Schedule. TWBC uses S106 agreements. RDC should coordinate with TWBC on cross-boundary funding.