These comments are submitted as a joint response from the Spindlewood Drive Action Group (SPINDAG) and thus represent the majority views of a large number of local residents (c 400) living in and around the Spindlewood Drive proposed development area.

The DaSA Local Plan Policy BEX3 (13.16) relates to land ref. BX124 to the north of Pebsham and Sidley. SPINDAG strongly agrees with this preferred site but considers that there is even more potential for development within BX124 than proposed in option 1 by developing option 3 as well. We strongly suggest that this would be more advantageous to all Bexhill residents and not just those who will be living on the preferred site BX124.

1. The main advantage of development within BX124 is that this is a new site without the physical constraints of an existing environment. Therefore, this offers a rare opportunity for a free and unencumbered approach for the development of homes and business space on a brand new site which would not interfere with or detract from other areas of Bexhill as other preferred sites undoubtedly would.
2. In order to minimise unnecessary car journeys and create a sense of community, it would be essential to provide local amenities within new developments. Site BX124 should enable suitable space for local shops and community facilities as already identified in BX124 option 1.
3. Access to BX124 will be via NBAR so the effect of new development here would not adversely affect the already congested A259 through Little Common.
4. BX124 refers to traffic constraints along St Mary's Lane but if NBAR were to be extended westwards from the A269 out to the A259 near the Lamb at Hooe (thereby creating a Little Common by-pass) , there would be easy access to BX124 from east and west without detriment to the local road network around St Mary's Lane, which has been identified as a key constraint/opportunity.
5. We note that Policy BEX3 option 1 refers to development to the south of NBAR but believe that RDC's housing needs could be better met by additionally adopting option 3 (which includes land to the north of NBAR) rather than putting extra strain on the infrastructure in other areas of Bexhill wherever land can be identified. Should there be a requirement for additional housing post 2028, further development to the north of NBAR could be considered as there is not only ample space but there will already be essential community amenities in place. Road access by bus or car via NBAR would also be possible without further road improvement.
6. In view of its location, BX124 is much better suited for development than any other areas of Bexhill and Little Common. BX124 will enjoy easy access via NBAR to Coombe Valley Way and thence to Ravenside, Conquest Hospital, GP surgeries at Bexhill Old Town and Sidley, Bexhill town centre itself and, indeed, the A21 to Tonbridge and London. None of these journeys would exacerbate the current congestion on the A259 nor add to pollution levels caused by traffic queues at congestion points such as Little Common roundabout.
7. BEX1 and BX113 commercial developments should provide employment for NBAR residents with access directly off NBAR itself which will be beneficial in reducing traffic movements and pollution and again would not contribute to additional traffic flow and congestion on the A259. It is obvious that, geographically and logistically, such advantages could not be readily available to new residents of any other proposed developments in Bexhill or Little Common.
8. Increased development in BX124, rather than elsewhere in Bexhill, would not result in a greater volume of traffic on the A259 with corresponding higher levels of pollution, which has recently been shown to pose a serious potential risk of dementia to local residents.
9. The construction of business areas within BX124 will offer many local residents employment near their homes. This is environmentally more sensible and preferable to building more homes elsewhere in Bexhill and for new residents in those areas having to travel to work in BX124.
10. Employment opportunities are very limited in Little Common so that people living in any new developments in this location would have to travel elsewhere for work. Their children would also have to be driven to schools in other areas. All these extra car journeys would increase congestion along the A259 and its approach roads. Surveys have shown that the A259 currently has to cope with a level of traffic which is already close to that forecast for 2028.
11. In view of this, we believe there should be no further major development in and around existing residential areas within Bexhill and Little Common since this would inevitably cause additional strain on the infrastructure (roads, GP surgeries, primary schools, parking etc.) which is already struggling to cope in many parts of the town.

Conclusion
Development within BX124 offers an exciting opportunity for a sustainable community with appropriate local amenities which would not adversely affect the infrastructure and lives of people in other areas of Bexhill. There is much better access to and from BX124 which would enhance the lives of its residents and not worsen the congestion and pollution on the A259 but improve traffic flow generally. An extension westwards of the NBAR (Little Common by-pass) would make BX124 an even more attractive proposition not only for people living there but also for other residents of Bexhill and indeed anyone using the A259. Should there be a requirement for additional homes post 2028 it would be simpler and far more environmentally friendly to extend BX124 rather than try to find sites in and around existing residential areas where there are no suitable infrastructure facilities or capacity.