Subject: FAO Mr Bending – Formal Objection: Wealden Local Plan – Question 6 & Question 11

Dear Mr Bending,

Objector Details:

Email: [INSERT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS]

Name: [INSERT YOUR TITLE, FIRST NAME & SURNAME]

Position: [Professional Position, e.g., Senior Architect] (REMOVE IF NOT RELEVANT)

Organisation: [Company/Group Name] (REMOVE IF NOT RELEVANT)

Address: [INSERT YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

I am writing to formally lodge my objection regarding Question 6: Draft Focused Wealden Local Plan Regulation 18 – Policy SS6 – Site OEMP4 and Question 11: Draft Focused Wealden Local Plan Regulation 18 – Policy SA1 – Policy Site LH1, please see my comments below.

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

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.

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.

Question 11: Draft Focused Wealden Local Plan Regulation 18 – Policy SA1 – Policy Site LH1

Objection to Owlsbury Farm Development

I write to object to the proposed allocation of approximately 1,500 dwellings at Owlsbury Farm 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.

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.

1. Jumping the A22 and the Size of Owlsbury

The plan would push development beyond the A22, which has always been a clear boundary marking the edge of Uckfield. Building on this scale would cross that boundary and blur the clear line between the town and the countryside.

When you add this to other proposed developments around Ashdown Forest and the Ashdown Business Park, Owlsbury Farm is simply too big. It risks changing the whole shape of how the district grows. Instead of being a natural extension of Uckfield, it would effectively create a new, separate settlement.

2. Poor Location and Weak Links to Uckfield

Owlsbury Farm is not a suitable place for a development of this size. It is too far from Uckfield town centre and poorly connected.

The A22 acts as a major barrier, and there are no safe, direct, or attractive walking and cycling routes. Because of this, most residents would not walk or cycle to shops, jobs, schools, or leisure facilities. They would mostly use cars.

This goes against planning policies that aim to reduce travel, support town centres, and encourage more sustainable living.

3. Water Supply Problems

There is no clear proof that enough water can be provided for a development of this size. The area already suffers from water shortages, and no solid plan has been shown to guarantee a reliable supply without harming the environment.

Without clear commitments from the water company and a realistic delivery plan, allocating this site is premature.

4. Sewage and Wastewater Capacity

The local sewerage system is already under pressure. There is no certainty that it could cope with 1,500 new homes, or that upgrades would be completed before people move in.

Approving development without guaranteed wastewater solutions risks damage to the environment and public health.

5. Serious Flood Risk

Parts of the site and surrounding land are in a high flood-risk area. Flooding has already happened recently, including in January 2026. Flooding could regularly cut off the proposed green space (SANG) from the homes.

Large developments also increase hard surfaces, which worsens flooding both on and off the site. The plan does not clearly explain how flood risk would be managed, especially with climate change making flooding more severe.

6. Loss of Valuable Farmland

Owlsbury Farm is productive agricultural land. Building over it permanently removes land needed for food production and weakens local farming.

Given that other, less sensitive sites exist, the loss of this farmland is not justified.

7. Pressure on Health Services

There is no evidence that local GP surgeries, dentists, or other health services could cope with around 3,500 extra people. These services are already stretched.

The plan does not show where new health facilities would go, how they would be funded, or when they would be built.

8. Traffic and Car Dependence

Because of its location, Owlsbury Farm would force residents to rely heavily on cars. Most trips – for work, school, healthcare, and shopping – would be by car.

This would add traffic to the A22 and nearby rural roads, which already suffer from congestion and safety problems. The plan does not provide convincing or realistic transport solutions.

9. Schools and Education

Local schools are already close to full. A development of this size would create a large demand for new school places.

The plan does not clearly explain how new schools would be delivered, where they would be built, or how they would be paid for.

10. Environmental Damage

The size and location of the development would harm the landscape, Ancient Woodland, wildlife, and natural habitats. More people would also bring noise, light pollution, traffic, and recreational pressure on sensitive areas.

The plan does not give enough confidence that wildlife losses could be properly offset or managed long term.

Conclusion

For all these reasons, the proposed development at Owlsbury Farm is not suitable or sustainable. It lacks clear evidence that essential infrastructure, environmental protection, and services could be provided.

I therefore ask that this site be removed from the Draft Regulation 18 District Plan, or at the very least be fully reconsidered.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that my objection has been formally recorded.

Sincerely,

[INSERT YOUR FIRST NAME & SURNAME]

How to send your objection email:

For simplicity, we recommend following these three steps:

1. Click the ‘Create email Template’ button below — this will open a draft email in your email client, pre-filled with the recipient address and subject line.
2. Click the ‘Copy Objection Text’ button — this will copy the full objection letter to your clipboard.
3. Switch to your email client and paste the text into the body of the email. You will then just need to fill in your personal details where indicated (name, address, email etc.) and remove any sections marked as not relevant before sending.