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

Re: Concerns regarding the Rother District Council Local Plan Consultation

I am writing to submit my response to the draft Rother Local Plan and share some of the concerns raised with me by constituents, many of which I share. Far too often existing residents are asked to support more housing locally when they are not provided with the infrastructure that should come with it. Their access to public services like GP appointments is already challenging – they reasonably ask why they should welcome developments that will make it worse?

Given that the majority of constituents will have submitted their comments directly to Rother, I will not comment on each and every site which has been brought to my attention. As mentioned, the common concern is that current infrastructure – roads/transport, schools, access to primary healthcare and utilities – is already stretched across the district and cannot accommodate the scale and location of proposed development. Constituents are also concerned about the impact on the environment, flood risks and protection of the High Weald AONB and Pevensey from further development.

Infrastructure must be the starting point of any sustainable planning strategy. At present, residents feel that the proposed allocations are being driven by the Government’s housing targets, rather than a realistic assessment of what the area can safely and responsibly support. On that basis, I have written to the Housing Minister to highlight the challenges for Rother to deliver an unrealistic housing target within the tight constraints of available land given well over 80% is protected by AONB or SSSI status. I am also aware that as our housing targets are raised, the Government is lowering the targets for house building in London because they say they aren’t realistic. They aren’t realistic for our area either. There are specific concerns about the impact on the A259 of proposed housing development in West Bexhill. I share those concerns and I am supportive of any plans for a new road which would alleviate the volume of traffic in Little Common which is already a heavily used route and will be more so if further housing is delivered in this part of the town.

In Sidley, I share the community’s concerns about site BEX50 – Sidley Car Park, which has been identified for a possible 10 homes. Whilst I fully understand the need for quality housing in Sidley, I consider that losing parking spaces in this free car park would be bad for local businesses and would impact the hard work which has been done in recent years by East Sussex ounty Council and All Saints School to create
a road safety scheme. Parents are no longer permitted to drive into Saints Lane at school drop off and pick up times so use Sidley car park. The school also runs ‘walking bus’ from the car park to the school gates.

In addition to concerns raised about infrastructure, the following have also been noted:

1. Sites in Battle – proposed BT7 off North Trade Road would sit on flood zones. General concerns about further development in Battle include worsening of congestion on already heavily-used roads, consideration of ancient and historic woodland, Battle cannot support additional population pressure and traffic – its high street being regularly congested and heavy vehicles causing damage to ancient buildings.

2. North Bexhill (BA3) – overdevelopment of green space without supporting infrastructure.

3. Netherfield (GYP4) temporary sites being granted permanent status sets a precedent that people can purchase plots and commence development without planning permission I look forward to your response to the above concerns and how these will be taken forward in future versions of the Local Plan.

Re: Concerns regarding the Rother District Council Local Plan Consultation

I am writing to submit my response to the draft Rother Local Plan and share some of the concerns raised with me by constituents, many of which I share. Far too often existing residents are asked to support more housing locally when they are not provided with the infrastructure that should come with it. Their access to public services like GP appointments is already challenging – they reasonably ask why they should welcome developments that will make it worse?

Given that the majority of constituents will have submitted their comments directly to Rother, I will not comment on each and every site which has been brought to my attention. As mentioned, the common concern is that current infrastructure – roads/transport, schools, access to primary healthcare and utilities – is already stretched across the district and cannot accommodate the scale and location of proposed development. Constituents are also concerned about the impact on the environment, flood risks and protection of the High Weald AONB and Pevensey from further development.

Infrastructure must be the starting point of any sustainable planning strategy. At present, residents feel that the proposed allocations are being driven by the Government’s housing targets, rather than a realistic assessment of what the area can safely and responsibly support. On that basis, I have written to the Housing Minister to highlight the challenges for Rother to deliver an unrealistic housing target within the tight constraints of available land given well over 80% is protected by AONB or SSSI status. I am also aware that as our housing targets are raised, the Government is lowering the targets for house building in London because they say they aren’t realistic. They aren’t realistic for our area either. There are specific concerns about the impact on the A259 of proposed housing development in West Bexhill. I share those concerns and I am supportive of any plans for a new road which would alleviate the volume of traffic in Little Common which is already a heavily used route and will be more so if further housing is delivered in this part of the town.

In Sidley, I share the community’s concerns about site BEX50 – Sidley Car Park, which has been identified for a possible 10 homes. Whilst I fully understand the need for quality housing in Sidley, I consider that losing parking spaces in this free car park would be bad for local businesses and would impact the hard work which has been done in recent years by East Sussex ounty Council and All Saints School to create
a road safety scheme. Parents are no longer permitted to drive into Saints Lane at school drop off and pick up times so use Sidley car park. The school also runs ‘walking bus’ from the car park to the school gates.

In addition to concerns raised about infrastructure, the following have also been noted:

1. Sites in Battle – proposed BT7 off North Trade Road would sit on flood zones. General concerns about further development in Battle include worsening of congestion on already heavily-used roads, consideration of ancient and historic woodland, Battle cannot support additional population pressure and traffic – its high street being regularly congested and heavy vehicles causing damage to ancient buildings.

2. North Bexhill (BA3) – overdevelopment of green space without supporting infrastructure.

3. Netherfield (GYP4) temporary sites being granted permanent status sets a precedent that people can purchase plots and commence development without planning permission I look forward to your response to the above concerns and how these will be taken forward in future versions of the Local Plan.

Re: Concerns regarding the Rother District Council Local Plan Consultation

I am writing to submit my response to the draft Rother Local Plan and share some of the concerns raised with me by constituents, many of which I share. Far too often existing residents are asked to support more housing locally when they are not provided with the infrastructure that should come with it. Their access to public services like GP appointments is already challenging – they reasonably ask why they should welcome developments that will make it worse?

Given that the majority of constituents will have submitted their comments directly to Rother, I will not comment on each and every site which has been brought to my attention. As mentioned, the common concern is that current infrastructure – roads/transport, schools, access to primary healthcare and utilities – is already stretched across the district and cannot accommodate the scale and location of proposed development. Constituents are also concerned about the impact on the environment, flood risks and protection of the High Weald AONB and Pevensey from further development.

Infrastructure must be the starting point of any sustainable planning strategy. At present, residents feel that the proposed allocations are being driven by the Government’s housing targets, rather than a realistic assessment of what the area can safely and responsibly support. On that basis, I have written to the Housing Minister to highlight the challenges for Rother to deliver an unrealistic housing target within the tight constraints of available land given well over 80% is protected by AONB or SSSI status. I am also aware that as our housing targets are raised, the Government is lowering the targets for house building in London because they say they aren’t realistic. They aren’t realistic for our area either. There are specific concerns about the impact on the A259 of proposed housing development in West Bexhill. I share those concerns and I am supportive of any plans for a new road which would alleviate the volume of traffic in Little Common which is already a heavily used route and will be more so if further housing is delivered in this part of the town.

In Sidley, I share the community’s concerns about site BEX50 – Sidley Car Park, which has been identified for a possible 10 homes. Whilst I fully understand the need for quality housing in Sidley, I consider that losing parking spaces in this free car park would be bad for local businesses and would impact the hard work which has been done in recent years by East Sussex ounty Council and All Saints School to create
a road safety scheme. Parents are no longer permitted to drive into Saints Lane at school drop off and pick up times so use Sidley car park. The school also runs ‘walking bus’ from the car park to the school gates.

In addition to concerns raised about infrastructure, the following have also been noted:

1. Sites in Battle – proposed BT7 off North Trade Road would sit on flood zones. General concerns about further development in Battle include worsening of congestion on already heavily-used roads, consideration of ancient and historic woodland, Battle cannot support additional population pressure and traffic – its high street being regularly congested and heavy vehicles causing damage to ancient buildings.

2. North Bexhill (BA3) – overdevelopment of green space without supporting infrastructure.

3. Netherfield (GYP4) temporary sites being granted permanent status sets a precedent that people can purchase plots and commence development without planning permission I look forward to your response to the above concerns and how these will be taken forward in future versions of the Local Plan.

Re: Concerns regarding the Rother District Council Local Plan Consultation

I am writing to submit my response to the draft Rother Local Plan and share some of the concerns raised with me by constituents, many of which I share. Far too often existing residents are asked to support more housing locally when they are not provided with the infrastructure that should come with it. Their access to public services like GP appointments is already challenging – they reasonably ask why they should welcome developments that will make it worse?

Given that the majority of constituents will have submitted their comments directly to Rother, I will not comment on each and every site which has been brought to my attention. As mentioned, the common concern is that current infrastructure – roads/transport, schools, access to primary healthcare and utilities – is already stretched across the district and cannot accommodate the scale and location of proposed development. Constituents are also concerned about the impact on the environment, flood risks and protection of the High Weald AONB and Pevensey from further development.

Infrastructure must be the starting point of any sustainable planning strategy. At present, residents feel that the proposed allocations are being driven by the Government’s housing targets, rather than a realistic assessment of what the area can safely and responsibly support. On that basis, I have written to the Housing Minister to highlight the challenges for Rother to deliver an unrealistic housing target within the tight constraints of available land given well over 80% is protected by AONB or SSSI status. I am also aware that as our housing targets are raised, the Government is lowering the targets for house building in London because they say they aren’t realistic. They aren’t realistic for our area either. There are specific concerns about the impact on the A259 of proposed housing development in West Bexhill. I share those concerns and I am supportive of any plans for a new road which would alleviate the volume of traffic in Little Common which is already a heavily used route and will be more so if further housing is delivered in this part of the town.

In Sidley, I share the community’s concerns about site BEX50 – Sidley Car Park, which has been identified for a possible 10 homes. Whilst I fully understand the need for quality housing in Sidley, I consider that losing parking spaces in this free car park would be bad for local businesses and would impact the hard work which has been done in recent years by East Sussex ounty Council and All Saints School to create
a road safety scheme. Parents are no longer permitted to drive into Saints Lane at school drop off and pick up times so use Sidley car park. The school also runs ‘walking bus’ from the car park to the school gates.

In addition to concerns raised about infrastructure, the following have also been noted:

1. Sites in Battle – proposed BT7 off North Trade Road would sit on flood zones. General concerns about further development in Battle include worsening of congestion on already heavily-used roads, consideration of ancient and historic woodland, Battle cannot support additional population pressure and traffic – its high street being regularly congested and heavy vehicles causing damage to ancient buildings.

2. North Bexhill (BA3) – overdevelopment of green space without supporting infrastructure.

3. Netherfield (GYP4) temporary sites being granted permanent status sets a precedent that people can purchase plots and commence development without planning permission I look forward to your response to the above concerns and how these will be taken forward in future versions of the Local Plan.