I think that the new document, together with the helpful Summary, is a much better presentation than the previous effort. As many of my earlier comments are still pertinent, I will try not to repeat them; I am referring to my letter of 7 July 2008. I also thought that the presentation the rural members had on 9 December was good and I hope you got some ideas from it.

It is, of course, difficult to plan twenty years ahead or so - just look at what the recession is doing now - but Table 2, page 10, is a good start. I know you mention the importance of infrastructure in other sections (eg, 4.9 & 5.22) but I would like to see the "Infrastructure Programmes" box highlighted. Also on this page under "Technology" have we considered that the result of home working will be less commuting and hopefully more support from commuters for the villages; set against this, though, will be the effect on village shops of the use of IT for shopping.

"Vision" - page 12 - for my liking is too long and too verbose, but I appreciate that you probably have to use dreadful words like "vibrant" to keep in with GOSE etal. As a general comment, do you think that in trying to be all things to all men you may have forgotten that mere mortals also have to read and understand the whole document - eg. how many people know what "spatial" means? The Oxford dictionary describes spatial as "relating to space", so it could be interpreted as pie in the sky or head in the clouds!

4.9 ...add..." and prevents future growth"...after quality of life.

4.10 to which is "next spring" does this refer?

5.12 if this is a tacit admission that the 40% requirement is open to negotiation, I agree; I believe it will turn out to be a deterrent to developers.

5.36 I hope I am correct in thinking you are leaving your options open here; so much can change, such as an unanticipated shift from private to public education, that "Service" villages could be overwhelmed. Please refer to my earlier thoughts on the distribution of houses in the countryside; the smaller communities also need investment.

5.91 Is this strong enough? In my view it should be made quite clear that without the Link road we will be unable to fulfil our allocation of new builds without destroying (some of) the AONB. If we are

pressurised to do just that, then 9.17 is fallible and it opens the way for a new self contained sort of "Poundbury" on the periphery of ? Bexhill.

Far be it for me to comment on the towns, but I do like the idea of out of town distribution points (not mentioned) for Rye and Battle. There is no mention of how anything is going to be paid for in the vision for Bexhill; I would have thought that regeneration of the town centre was a priority over the Colonade/seafront and should not be done at the expense of the rural areas.

Rural Areas. We have covered this subject pretty comprehensively in the past and there is not a lot new that I can add. You should be receiving a separate paper on Burwash from the Parish Council.

10. Communities. I do not think lowering the threshold for affordable housing will achieve the expected result and the forecast gain is so negligible that it is not worth the risk of upsetting the landowners/developers. 10.20 surely the higher level of social rented housing would have a much worse impact on a small rural sites. 10.21 this seems to disregard the fact that there is not that much demand in the rural areas.

12 Environment - Landscape Strategy:- Include tree planting. Design Quality:- Box 29 this is gobbledegook! What does high quality design mean. place making, quality of public realm, robust design solutions etc! This is one person's perception versus another's and will become a lawyer's paradise unless tightened up (or, better still, abandoned) 9.46 says it better.

General Comments. I would like to see a shorter, more concise document, not trying to be all things to all men and being more understandable to the man in the street. Some points that might be worth considering in my view are :-

Should responsibility for footpaths in rural areas be invested in the Parish Councils; the locals know which paths are used and which need maintaining.

A standard 30mph limit in all villages and a max of say 40mph for minor roads

Encouraging cycling is all very well but is a hazardous occupation in the countryside without dedicated (and protected) tracks.

More multi storey car parks and flats in, or on outskirts of, towns.

Consideration given to fast coastal sea transport.

It is important that documents for our future like the LDF do not dummy down to the lowest common denominator; we have to cater for the majority, who do not need nannying and who, very largely, can be left to their own devices. Above all we must strongly resist central government dictates and their mania to concrete over the South East of England when it is not even necessary.

Cllr. David Vereker