As residents of St. Mary's Lane my wife and I have considerable concern over the effect of traffic on this country lane. In the last few years traffic on St. Mary's Lane has increased markedly and it is now, as mentioned in the draft document, a 'rat run'. In addition the existing access onto/from the A269 at the North end of the lane is dangerous and resulted in a number of quite serious accidents. There are also frequent minor accidents on the 's' bend which are not reported to the police. More traffic generated by the new Sidley bypass will only exacerbate this problem.

We have several suggestions to make:-

* Do not have any new access on to St. Mary's Lane from any new development.

* Build a new section of road between the lane, to the north of the recreation ground (before the s-bend), cutting across the strip of land south and east of Little Bersden and meeting the A269 south east of the new Sidley bypass. The north facing hill, which is already heavily wooded, is an adequate "woodland buffer". This would make the existing exit on to the A269 much quieter and used only by immediate residents. New roads within the new housing development can feed onto this new section of road.

* All and every proposal for St. Mary's Lane must address the twin problems of excessive speed and vehicle size. At present nearly every commercial vehicle using the lane is over the width limit. Most cars and lorries exceed the speed limit. There is no provision for countering these abuses. One assumes cameras and traffic calming measures can be introduced but these will be of no use if they are not policed.

With regard to the requirements of Policy BEX3 we would favour Option 1 (ret. BX124). However, we are at a loss to understand the omission of the 2 properties to the west of St.Mary's Lane - Bramble Cottage and The Spinney. These two properties and the field between them have a natural boundary on their western boundary which would fulfil the requirements of maintaining a land buffer with Lunsford Cross just as well as the present proposal but help the council fulfil it's housing quota.

We would like the council to give these comments serious consideration. We are directly affected by these proposals and a minor change to option 1 boundary would help us but not affect the council's desired buffer zone.