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

Support

Representation ID: 31287

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: DHA Planning

Agent: DHA Planning

We remain supportive of the proposed vision for Northern Rother which recognises the need for rural settlements and communities to benefit from Plan-led growth, through small-scale sensitive residential development and growth in villages.

Villages such as Flimwell are well-connected to sustainable settlements such as neighbouring Ticehurst via frequently served bus routes between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings via Hawkhurst (primarily route ‘1066’).
We agree that there are opportunities for sensitive development in the short term, including through delivery of sites identified within Neighbourhood Plans, such as Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan. Where sites are already allocated at a local level, we suggest that these are revisited for potential to accommodate additional growth, given the district-level shortfall in site availability.

We support the long-term ambitions for greater delivery upon completion of improvement to the A21 corridor, however as recognised with the Plan, such works fall outside either the scope or timeframe of the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 31288

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: DHA Planning

Agent: DHA Planning

We strongly support the inclusion of our client’s site at Land rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell in the emerging Local Plan. Our client is generally supportive of the outlined objectives, but in light of the relatively high densities sought by the Council we would urge the Council to add policy wording that ensures the objectives can be applied by Officer’s with a degree of flexibility.
In particular, objective (iii) seeking to restrict development to only the southern half of the site is not quantified and as demonstrated within the submitted indicative layout, if applied rigidly by Officers, does not allow the target development capacity of 32 dwellings to be delivered whilst balancing wider requirement for internal landscaping, ecology, highways access, parking and amenity.
We suggest the wording is amended to either remove reference to ‘half’ or state ‘as much as possible’ to ensure the deliverability of the site

Support

Representation ID: 31289

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: DHA Planning

Agent: DHA Planning

It is noted that the SA does not confirm what each indicator refers to (for example, how it relates to the assessment questions outlined in the appendix), therefore it is not possible to provide detailed comments on the assessment’s assessments.

It is noted however that there are some inconsistencies with how FW1 has been assessed compared to other identified sites in Flimwell.

The reasons for this are highly unclear on the evidence that the site is unaffected by flood risk from any source and has been demonstrated through the submission of previous ecology evidence. In terms of arboriculture, the majority of trees and hedgerows within the site perimeter can be retained. A significant buffer to the north of the site will also protect trees within Wardsdown Wood (Ancient Woodland).
It is unclear why these conclusions have been reached without more clarity on the assessment indicators.

Support

Representation ID: 31290

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: DHA Planning

Agent: DHA Planning

We strongly support the allocation of Land rear of Fruitfields, High Street, Flimwell’ for an uplifted figure of 32 homes, identified for delivery commencing within the initial 0-5 year phase. Formal allocation within the District Plan will secure the deliverability of the Neighbourhood Plan allocation and the site should continue to form part of the Council’s housing evidence base which will inform the emerging Local Plan.