I have no objection in principle to the development of either site subject to certain conditions beneficial to Beckley and its fast disappearing 'typical Sussex village' character:

1.1: These properties must be 'affordable' (a totally meaningless word conjured up by moronic politicians) and built for bona fide local people (similar to the Buddens Green and lcklesham 'Five villages' concepts):

1.2: 'Affordability': These must not only be affordable (ie: the 3-times income 80% mortgages of old before the financial institutions and governments went mad in 1987 with 5-times, 110% mortgages - the primary factor in unrealistic house prices), but must also be comfortably large starter homes (not shoe-boxes) to replace those several small properties in the village lost through unrestricted gentrification in recent years. More importantly at their sale, these new houses must remain 'affordable' by covenant for the very last thing Beckley needs are greedy property developers and speculators.

1.3: To that end both sites should be local-need rental (the majority) and shared ownership (the minority) under a bona fide housing association, or as Rother council houses. Those on low local wages must have absolute priority over commuters on higher London-weighted incomes.