Received Comments

Oppose: 30 | Support: 3 | Comments: 2
(incl. those who asked for their comments not to be posted)

Sam Dowling - Highfields

7th May 2020: 22:24

Oppose the housing

The 22 dwellings at the Glebe site represent a significant population increase for the village. While this would surely be welcome for local traders, my wife and I feel that this would place yet more pressure on road traffic, school places, health services, parking, safety issues with regard to access - without mentioning the loss much valued open space.

 

We feel that E Sussex is in danger of losing its rural character and would like to see more sensitive developments on brownfield sites such as the old Oakley's garage site and much greater preservation of the open countryside and woodland.

 

Thank you for bringing the various developments to light - we offer our full support to you !

Anonymous

21th April 2020: 11:45

Supports the housing

I support this proposal, after looking over the plans I feel this is a very thought out plan. The development is in a field that is otherwise inaccessible. The foot paths do not direct me into this field. As far as I can see the side of the field with foot pats is not included in the plan.

 

We desperately need housing in this village and the country as a whole. This development gives our children an opportunity to possibly buy a house here in the village rather than moving away.

 

The access issues I think are mute, there is already an entrance opposite the proposed entrance so how is one a problem but not the other.

 

As far as out paths and views and access, I cannot see anyone of us having to walk a different route or not be able to access anywhere we can't already.

 

I think of all the proposals this one has less of an impact on the village and our fields compared to all other proposals. It out of the way in a field we don't have access to anyway.

 

Good luck

Josephine O'Donnell - High Street

21th April 2020: 09:50

Oppose the housing

Hello, I strongly oppose the application for houses at the Glebe on many levels.

 

1. The historic footpath with its amazing views of the ANOB would be totally changed with houses in its proximity.

2. The Glebe mansion with its fields is an ancient house with historical interest and should be preserved.

3. The road is designated to be a 30mph limit. However, in reality it is extremely fast where the access is proposed. I say this as a cyclist who uses this road, and know that many people thunder down the A265 terrifyingly close towards the blind bend.

4. The destruction of the habitats of many endangered species (newts, bats, kestrels and so on) which occupy this field would be a travesty.

5. The views of the housing development from miles away would be an eyesore, and far away from the character of the village.

6. It would be used as ribbon development between Etchingham and Burwash. which would further destroy our beautiful village.

Anonymous

20th April 2020: 19:33

Oppose the housing

We are against the proposed development at The Glebe as the site is in area of outstanding natural beauty. The increase of traffic in the area of the village : it is an accident blackspot. Access to local amenities how will residents get to local shops etc will there be a designated footpath or is it by car? Thus again increasing the traffic in already built up area?

Robert Lea - Garston Park

20th April 2020: 16:50

Oppose the housing

Good afternoon,
I wish to object to the proposed development at the Glebe.

This will destroy an area of outstanding national beauty which also has significant historical interest. This will be lost for future generations if this development goes ahead.  I also have concerns that it is not within the development boundary of the village and increases the probability of a ribbon development between Etchingham and Burwash along the A265.
I believe that there is a real risk to safety as a consequence of the increased traffic on the main road. This would be exacerbated as the increased number of vehicles come and go from the development, raising the chances of more road traffic accidents on what is already a dangerous main road.

Anonymous

20th April 2020: 16:12

Oppose the housing

I think it is an outrageous proposal. Apart from having a profoundly negative impact on myself, my family and my bed and breakfast business the damage to the village and the community would be devastating on every level. I will support the rejection or this proposal with every breath I have.

Lorraine Lea - Garston Park

20th April 2020: 14:42

Oppose the housing

I am writing to object to the proposed development.

This will destroy an area of outstanding national beauty with significant historical interest. I also have concerns that it is not within the development boundary of the village and increases the probability of a ribbon development between Etchingham and Burwash along the A265.

I believe that there is a real risk to safety as a consequence of the increased traffic on the main road.

Anonymous

20th April 2020: 13.37

Oppose the housing

I oppose the housing at the Glebe, and agree with comments made by Burwash save our fields

Anonymous

19th April 2020: 14:24

Oppose the housing

This development would be a travesty in an AOANB, used by many as a glorious walkway through delightful countryside. Whatever attempts are likely to be made to minimise the effect, nothing would avoid the destruction of a delightful area of beautiful English countryside. In addition, the local traffic would be a serious danger to those entering or leaving the built up area, as the main road is a major thoroughfare for heavy goods vehicles en-route to other local areas.

Win Hockett - Straight Mile

19th April 2020: 14:15

Oppose the housing

This development would be very detrimental to local amenities as it would substantially intrude upon local footpath availability in a very popular area for such activities. In addition, access and exit from the main road would be a very hazardous process in view of the considerable amount of heavy traffic on what is a major through route to other local towns and villages..

Robert Banks - Rye Green Farm

19th April 2020: 13:54

Oppose the housing

Below is a shortened version of my opinion. Please click at the bottom for my complete opinion statement

1 The Burwash housing allocation is a target only It has been claimed that Burwash Parish has to have 52 houses by law. This misstates the situation. Keeping inflation below 2½% is a government target. Full employment is another government target. If targets are not met there is no breach of the law.

2 Housing targets are rarely met either locally or nationally. 

3 How does government encourage councils to achieve their allocations? There is a carrot and a stick approach. The carrot is that councils receive money for new houses built. It is called the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy). The stick is that when a council is in housing deficit (which means the area has not reached its required target), the planning procedure is tilted towards development. Crucially all planning rules remain in place. 

4 What is the housing allocation? Rother District Council has currently set 52 houses as the required housing allocation for Burwash.

5 How was the number fixed for Burwash?

For the rest of the opinion click here - Personal comment Robert Banks

Ian and Patricia Kirk - Rectory Close

18th April 2020: 12:31

Oppose the housing

As residents of Rectory Close we wish to comment on the proposed development at The Glebe.


We strongly oppose any such development for the many fundamental reasons contained in Robert Banks’ letter.   In particular we would point to:

1. The planned destruction of the landscape, visible and viewed from many directions, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.   Such development has been described in the Burwash Neighbourhood Development Plan as totally unacceptable.

2.  Rother District Council’s previous policy statement,  12 years ago, to protect the village from development Eastwards by the creation of preservation orders on many trees at Brambles.

3.  Development of this land would clearly be a ribbon development leading to further destruction of our AONB.

4.  The A265 is a fast and dangerous road at the best of times.
Planning to open up a driveway from the field to service a probable additional 50 cars and associated commercial traffic on a blind bend would be dicing with death and tragedy - it would only be a matter of time.

 

It seems the applicant and the developers are asking the RDC to make a grossly irresponsible decision.

Helene King

15th April 2020: 10:04

Oppose the housing

Building twenty -two houses on this unspoilt piece of countryside, just to fulfil a quota dictated by Rother District Council would be detrimental to the village. There are several brown field sites such as Ashwood, Higher Nature etc in the parish waiting to be developed and these should be prioritised instead of destroying a beautiful green field. A serious review by Rother of how Burwash can produce the houses it needs within its parish boundary should be undertaken. The urban blueprint designed for towns such as Bexhill just does not fit a High Weald village in the AONB. Restricting new housing to Burwash village when there are possible sites in Burwash Weald and Burwash Common parts of the parish makes no sense.


This field is important because:


(i)On its Northern roadside boundary it one of a series of fields which provide an imposing rural entrance into the historic High Weald village of Burwash.
(ii)From its Southern boundary on the ridge the public footpath affords long reaching views to the North over the Rother Valley to its distant ridge. To the South lies the Dudwell Valley and the Brightling Ridge. As a result, the well- trodden, popular public footpath at this point enjoys a beautiful panorama.
(iii)It has many ancient and protected trees and ponds. It is a wildlife corridor for great crested newts and other important wildlife.
(iv)It is sited next to a substantial village property, The Glebe, whose demesne includes areas of archaeological interest.


This field is unsuitable for housing because:


(i)It is next to the busy A265 which has many heavy vehicles thundering through. There is no safe footpath into the High Street from the field and none would be possible for this major development. The vehicular exit would also be highly dangerous. It would need street furniture and safety features on a suburban scale. The beauty of this village entrance must be protected.
(ii)The houses would be an eyesore as they stretched up the side of the field and would be seen from the Rother valley and on the Rother ridge.
(iii) The expansive Northerly views from the footpath would be destroyed by a contrived screen of trees.
(iv)There would be a great deal of light pollution which would affect both the Rother and Dudwell valleys.
(v)Twenty -two houses would mean probably forty-four more cars clogging up the narrow country lanes, the High Street and the village car park.
(Vi) The houses, if built, would not fulfil a local need. A CPRE study has recently shown that only one in ten so called ‘affordable homes’ are actually affordable for people living in rural communities on local wages.

Anonymous

11th April 2020: 18:48

Oppose the housing

This is an area of outstanding natural beauty.  It would lead to much destruction of wildlife and their natural habitats. There are several nesting buzzards that would be affected by this proposal. I do not approve of the positioning of these new houses or the destruction of such a beautiful view pint that many locals use for fitness/excercise and rambling.

Anonymous

11th April 2020: 18:42

Oppose the housing

I would have huge concerns about the safety of the driveway position at the entrance if burwash and the fact there is no pavement at present where this intends to be built.
Our doctors surgery is already a very busy practice and worry it wouldn’t cope with the additional homes. The same with our primary school.

Anonymous

11th April 2020: 15:33

Oppose the housing

It will ruin the beautiful entrance to Burwash, such a picturesque start to the village.
The entrance /exit site is on a dangerous corner.
It would be dangerous to cross the road to access the path.
Such a pretty field which would be ruined.
The field in question is not part of the boundary for housing.
This is just money making.
This is an area of outstanding beauty... And this will ruin it.

Anonymous

11th April 2020: 14:32

Oppose the housing

This is an unbelievably poor site for the plans suggested, the access to the site would be incredibly dangerous from the A265 it is at the point where wider vehicles will often cross the white lines in the middles of the road.

Andrew Eastwell

11th April 2020: 08:12

Oppose the housing

My objections, in addition to those in the excellent and thorough assessment written by Robert Banks are:

- The development is proposed outside the village boundary, contributing to the creeping suburbanisation of a beautiful Sussex village.

- A dangerous planning precedent would be created for further development on the south side of the Gleebe footpath. Graham Fifield's supporting submission illustrates how developments on neighbouring sites can be used as a ratchet to justify adjacent development proposals - this is one of the arguments he employs in respect of the Rectory Close development.

- There is a danger that a ribbon development such as this would provide a dangerous precedent for other local sites on the A265 to the east and west of the village. Other proposals, such at the recent proposal for a site to the south of the A265 at Burwash Common would be harder to resist if sites such as the Gleebe were to be developed.

- Creation of a dangerous site exit on a fast stretch of the A265. Though technically withing the 30mph limit, local residents know only too well how fast the trafic at this point can be. There are blind bends in the road on either side of the proposed entrance and weekday commercial trafic levels are often heavy.

- Smaller local developments have been given approval in recent years, demonstrating that more sensitive proposals can be accomodated without the incuring the damage to the village character and infractrusture that larger proposals such as this entail.

Many Thanks

Teskey O'Neil - Rother View

10th April 2020: 09:24

Oppose the housing

This is the entrance to our beautiful village from the East,and new houses will be a total eyesore,surly it is farmland and protected,houses on this field which has a slope down to the road with 22 houses would look hideous particularly as each house will have 2 cars,access and exit to the sight would not be easy.

Frank Sanderson - Grandturzel Farm

9th April 2020: 23:07

Comment

The Neighbourhood Plan committee asked all in the Parish to offer possible sites where obligatory houses could be built. The committee rejected all the multiple house suggestions. At their public meeting at the Pavillion the Glebe site was raised and in discussions with Councillor John Barnes it was thought that if it became essential to use this site we would have to be very careful to make certain that no part of the development protruded above the ridge as viewed from south. A subsequent meeting then took place when Mr. Arthur was in Scandinavia.

 

I remain convinced that any forced expansion of Burwash should reluctantly take place on the opposite side of the A265 in the large area to the west of a new road going from the A265 to Shrub Lane at a point up hill from Greenfield road. Certainly an unpopular suggestion from a Parishioner who has had twenty houses built on the private access road to his own house.

Richard and Christine Painter - Rectory Close

6th April 2020

Oppose the housing

We live close to the site of this proposed development and having studied the plans and drawings and stood on the site we strongly object to its inclusion in the Parish Councils Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Having walked in the field this morning we cannot comprehend any reason why such a beautiful part of our countryside with far reaching views across an area of outstanding natural beauty should be lost to housing development.

The land must remain outside the Burwash Parish Council's Neighbourhood Development Plan and not be eligible for development. It was considered in the past and rejected. Rother District Council has on a number of occasions rejected this site for development. In the Strategic Housing Assessment it was classified as not suitable for development because the landscape is exposed to long views from multiple directions within the AONB.

So what has changed? Rother District Council claims that the Burwash Parish Council needs to allow the building of further units to meet its housing target. This mathematical exercise is no excuse for the destruction of our fabulous countryside. If these housing targets are sacrosanct - and that is questionable under the new government - then the Parish Council needs to consider all other options that do not spoil our countryside. 

We do not believe that the East Sussex County Council highways engineers will approve another multi vehicular access point onto the A265 at this location. This highway is a major arterial road with significant traffic levels reducing speed in a 30mph on the approach to Burwash village.

 

We hope very much that the Councillor's will take all our points on board and reject the development. 

Gavin Roweth - Rectory Close

6th April 2020: 16:09

Oppose the housing

As residents of Brambles, the property immediately adjacent to the site, we would like to comment on the proposal and strongly object to any development by George Arthur in the field and its inclusion in the housing allocation for the village.

We find it incredible that he could conceive of destroying such a beautiful part of Burwash.

Recorded throughout the Burwash Neighbourhood Development Plan, in many of its aspects, this land is totally unacceptable for development. Even in an AONB this land is special, with stunning traditional Wealden views in all directions.

As we all know, Burwash is historically a ridge top village dating back to medieval times and beyond. Seen from many miles to the north and south this field, and the ridge at its southern edge, clearly indicate the village’s eastern boundary. What many residents may not know is that 12 years ago this was reinforced by Rother Council when tree preservation orders were placed on dozens of the trees at Brambles in order to ‘To protect the village from further development Eastwards’ (their words!). 

The proposal says this development would not adversely affect the landscape, this is rubbish, it would for all time be seen for many miles in all directions, especially during the 5 months of the year when there are no leaves on the trees and the 20 or 30 years it will take these new trees to grow to the necessary size. 

The submission suggests the housing would not be ribbon development, however as it would join Burwash to The Glebe it could therefore be a green light to further infilling along the A265 to the Care Home nearly half a mile out of the village, this is classic ribbon development, whatever the document claims. The Glebe house maybe 200 metres from the field, but the various cottages and coach house on Glebe land are only 100 meters, so clearly the proposal is attempting to deceive its audience.

The A265, as we all know, is a busy road, especially during rush hour and school times. The number of heavy goods vehicles using it has grown significantly over the past few years. There is no footpath on the south of the road where the proposed entrance will be and only a steep grass bank opposite on the north before the path 10 metres further west.

 

There is only 75 metres to the blind bend where traffic exits the village, lorries will be rounding the corner to see pedestrians in the road, and motorists sometimes use the short strip of road running down to The Glebe’s entrance to overtake other vehicles, a risky passing at any time, but with children, pushchairs, dogs etc, struggling to cross the road here, this is a nightmare waiting to happen, anyone can see the irresponsibility of this idea. 

 

We could go on and on with many objections, like the wildlife that uses the field, Kingfishers and ducks move from our pond to pond in the field, as do all three British species of newt, the owls, kestrels and bats that feed here, but maybe it’s best to refer to the Burwash Neighbourhood Development Plan and to information posted on the website  of Burwash: Save Our Fields which is far more detailed and technical in its objection to why this land should be rejected for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan housing allocation.

Lesley Moore

6th April 2020: 13:35

Oppose the housing

I sincerely believe that if the submission for pre-planning advice by the owners of Glebe achieves permission to destroy their beautiful field by covering it in concrete and houses, this would be the beginning of the end for all three of our Burwash villages. I have viewed the site from its southern point where the footpath meanders along the ridge from St Bartholomew's, and from its northern edge on the A265. It would not only be the ancient foot-way that would be spoiled for ever, but the whole character of the eastern end of our historic village. As you walk the path you feel as well as see the history. Ancient oaks, spectacular panoramic surround-sound views. Any building on this stunning part of the AONB would be visible from all directions: from the south from Brightling, from the north from the fields, properties on Shrub Lane and the hills beyond, from the west as you walk from the village, and from each of the closest surrounding properties.

 

As an active member of the Burwash Village campaign for safer roads I cannot imagine how this site could be considered safe to access. The field is located on a known fast stretch of the A265. Vehicle access would be dangerous enough, regular pedestrian access a seriously dangerous nightmare. There is no pavement or verge. Anyone currently foolhardy enough to consider crossing the A265 at this point reconsiders the moment the juggernauts and other reckless drivers speed past. Ongoing daily access for a large number of households would simply not be a safe possibility here without a significant redevelopment of the A265, which East Sussex County Council as the transport authority would be extremely unlikely and ill-advised to authorise. Their priority, as they have reminded us campaigners repeatedly, is to keep the economy on the move along its network of A roads. Destroying the AONB is one thing; redirecting the traffic flow at this location would be a whole new terrifying ball game and an unsightly prospect ta-boot. If it happened and diverted / detracted from safeguarding measures in the village this would endanger everyone. Not acceptable!

The current RDC advice that their air-plucked quota of houses be squeezed into the Burwash Village development boundary is illogical. There are no sites available and their targets cannot be met. Their insistence that we simply lever their target numbers in could only be done by placing new builds outside of the development boundary. If this were done planning officers would need to actively defy a range of explicit and recently updated central government guidance. Our Neighbourhood Development Plan position, which has been widely consulted on and is completed for submission, was achieved through a huge amount of hard work and angst. It is strong: thoroughly researched analysed considered and assessed. While some planning officers may continue to pursue a hostile and intransigent attitude towards us, we have no need now to feed that particular beast by adopting an equally illogical approach.  What we actually need is properly affordable housing that meets local need and the opportunity to create this on existing suitable brown field sites across the parish. Instead of destroying our community lets act to enable it to flourish.

 

If we concede to the ideas muted in this submission, by stepping aside to watch a beautiful field at Glebe destroyed and built on, we might as well erect the white flags in each of our villages, and hold a welcoming party for the developers. Once the AONB is gone it will all go, field by precious field.

Anonymous

6th April 2020: 11:28

Support the housing

1. Like Robert Banks I would like to see our lovely and ancient village of Burwash remain unchanged.
However I accept that changes will happen over the years and there are people desperately in need of
homes. The government has insisted that some of these homes are provided in Burwash therefore I think
we should give this proposal serious consideration.


2. This development is compact, has direct access on to a main road, is very close to the village and has
pedestrian access to the village via the existing footpath. The 22 units would fulfil the quota set. It includes
affordable housing and the plans do not show any multi million pound villas. In other words it would
provide the basic need for homes.


3. Access from road and safety. The proposed access is within the 30mph limit but for additional safety I
wonder whether this limit could be reset to a point further eastwards. There is a very sharp bend just
before the site which already slows traffic down going in a westward direction. An extension of the 30mph
limit would also benefit the residents of houses on the opposite side of the road. A wide access similar to
that of Young’s Gardens should give a good view of approaching traffic. If not why not re-position the
hedge back a few feet. (The hedge may be old but it is not particularly beautiful or unique in our area.)


4. Yes, this field is very attractive and in an area of AONB. But it is a very small area when considering the
whole of the valley. The developer shows some green screening to the south of the site and once this is
established walking along the footpath will be no different to the other sections of the footpath which run
to the south of gardens belonging to existing properties.


5. I do appreciate that the residents of Brambles are unhappy about these proposals. However this is the
only property bordering the site and is to the side; they would still have wonderful views over the valley to
the south.


6. Footpath. As a dog walker I often enjoy walks in this area however I am put off this particular section
due to the unpredictable behaviour of the horses which have been there. I know others who feel the
same. There are plenty of ways of skirting round neighbouring fields while still enjoying the pleasures of
the area.


7. Neighbourhood Plan. As no suitable sites for new housing have been identified within the
Neighbourhood Plan I think we should think very carefully before dismissing this proposal.

Allan Howard - Borders Lane

6th April 2020: 08:50

Oppose the housing

I honestly cannot understand the mentality of anyone who cannot see the beauty of this outstanding and beautiful view of our countryside.  They must be mad to even consider destroying this field forever and covering it in houses.  As with so many others, we have enjoyed this footpath over many years and hope someone will protect it for future generations to experience and respect this special place in our wonderful countryside .

©2020 by Burwash: Save Our Fields. | Privacy Policy | Website Design by Martyn Wright