It sounds as if, A21 crossing aside, the issue of flood prevention is uppermost in the minds of many locally. If I lived on the Rother Levels, I'd be very concerned at any risk of increasing the likelihood of inundation too, so I can't say I blame anyone for that. A good while back now, I met a sheep farmer from that area (a bit south of Bodiam), not one of yer Good Life wannabes, but an honest to goodness hard bitten umpteenth generation farmer. Anyone who knows the levels knows there's always a chance of some flooding, they've lived with that forever. When you've spoken to someone like that guy, who's been flooded so often over the years that it mostly goes without comment, you don't expect to find them in pieces. That year produced several incidents in quick succession, waterlogged ground making each time worse than the last, culminating in more than usually severe flash flooding, which killed around 20 pregnant ewes on his one farm. Hearing something like that, it's a lot easier to understand why these aren't just abstract, theoretical concerns of local NIMBYs (though there'll be a smattering of them too). The problems are all too real.. If the RVR scheme can demonstrate clearly that such perfectly understandable questions have been properly accounted for and they can convince the likes of that farmer that any concerns based on bitter experience can now safely be regarded as unfounded, most of the reasoned objections will melt away and then you'll have a clearer sight of any remaining objections The flip-side is, of course, if it is clearly shown that reinstatement can be carried through in such a way as to significantly reduce that likelihood, that's a game changer and were I in in the situation of the local populace, I'd not then be objecting, so much as biting the RVR's hand off to get the job done.