Below is the suggested text which you can either copy and paste or adapt to suit your own views and words.
Please be sure to include your personal details or your objection will not count.

Question 6: Draft Focused Wealden Local Plan Regulation 18 – Policy SS6 – Site OEMP4

Copy & paste the below into Box A:

Objection to Ashdown Business Park Expansion/Oakwood Park

I write to object to the proposed allocation at Ashdown Business Park/Oakwood Park within the Draft Wealden Local Plan Regulation 18. My objection is based on the scale, location, and cumulative impacts of the proposal, which I consider to be unsound, undeliverable, and contrary to the principles of sustainable development. My concerns are set out below. Collectively and individually, these concerns demonstrate that the site is unsound, unsustainable, and likely to cause significant and irreversible harm.

The allocation is not consistent with sustainable development, is not justified, is not effective and is not consistent with national policy.

My reasons are set out below.

Copy & paste the below into Box B:

1. Combined Impact of All Development

The combined impact of this employment site alongside the large amount of new housing already planned in and around Uckfield has not been properly looked at. Taken together, these developments would create far more traffic than the existing road network can handle. This would lead to serious congestion, longer journey times, and worse air quality. The proposal fails to properly assess these combined impacts, which planning policy requires.

2. Turning Uckfield and Nearby Villages into One Large Sprawling Town

The size and location of this expansion would gradually cause Uckfield to merge with Maresfield and nearby villages. This would erase the clear separation between towns and countryside and destroy the individual character of these places.

Instead of remaining a market town, Uckfield would become a large, spread-out urban area. This level of growth is excessive and does not follow a sensible, planned approach to development. Once the countryside is suburbanised, the damage cannot be undone.

3. Roads Are Already at Capacity

The local road network is made up of narrow rural roads with limited junctions and few alternative routes. The single carriageway A22, A26, and A272 already suffer from regular congestion, especially at busy times of day.

There is no convincing evidence that the road improvements needed to support this development could actually be delivered, or delivered in time. The proposal relies on expensive and uncertain infrastructure upgrades, which makes it unrealistic and unreliable.

4. An Unsustainable, Car-Dependent Location

This site is poorly located in terms of sustainability. Most journeys would have to be made by car, as walking, cycling, and public transport options are minimal.

This goes against efforts to reduce car use and cut carbon emissions. The development would increase commuting distances and traffic, making climate change targets harder to achieve. There is no credible public transport solution for the area.

5. Supply, Drainage, and Flooding a city

There is no clear evidence that enough water, sewage treatment, and drainage capacity can be provided without harming the environment. Water resources in the area are already stretched, and further development would make the situation worse.

More hard surfaces would also increase surface water runoff, raising the risk of flooding both on the site and downstream. This conflicts with the basic principles of sustainable development.

6. Permanent Loss of Farmland

The proposal would permanently remove productive farmland. National policy aims to protect good-quality agricultural land and support food security. Once this land is built over, it is gone for good. Agricultural land also stores carbon efficiently.

7. Harm to Ashdown Forest

The site is close to Ashdown Forest, an internationally protected and highly sensitive natural area. More traffic, increased air pollution, and greater recreational pressure would place even more strain on the Forest.

Given the Forest is already under pressure, the proposal does not show how these additional impacts could be avoided or properly managed.

8. PFAS (“Forever Chemicals”) Contamination and Risks to Viability

There is increasing concern about PFAS contamination, often linked to industrial uses and use for fire fighting. This is particularly relevant here because the Fire Brigade has used these chemicals for decades at the training centre on the Business Park site.

No proper surveys have been carried out to assess the risks to people, wildlife, groundwater, or the River Ouse. These uncertainties create serious environmental and reputational risks.

As a result, businesses may be reluctant to locate here, which could undermine the economic case for the site. The Local Plan does not properly address these PFAS risks or their long-term consequences.

9. Damage to Ancient Woodland and the Low Weald Landscape

The development would damage Ancient Woodland, which cannot be replaced, and would harm the distinctive character of the Low Weald landscape.

This landscape is valued for its open countryside, historic field patterns, and wildlife. Large-scale commercial development would permanently erode these qualities, directly conflicting with the Local Plan’s own environmental goals.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the proposed Ashdown Business Park Expansion / Oakwood Park is unsuitable and unsustainable. It conflicts with national planning policy and the aims of the Wealden Local Plan.

The site should therefore be removed from the Draft Local Plan, and genuinely sustainable alternatives should be considered instead.