I am very concerned about the proposed number of houses to be built in Bexhill and Little Common. I understand that the Government target for Rother as a whole is about 5,700 dwellings, and the current proposals see Bexhill and Little Common shouldering this burden to the tune of 3,100 without the necessary infrastructure to support such development.

We are already short of school places, GPs, and dentists, and the roads cannot cope with current demands. Further developments will see Little Common becoming even more gridlocked by the excessive traffic.

I am most opposed to the development of BX116. I have no doubt that as a consequence Maple Walk and Maple Avenue will become rat runs. These are unadopted roads and the residents pay annually to a fund to maintain the surface of the road, clean the gullies, and keep the area tidy and litter-free. I am not prepared to subsidise road use for non-residents and have the environment in which I live become noisy and polluted.

As well as the points made above, I am also anxious about the use of a greenfield site that is below sea level and adjacent to an area of special scientific interest (and to the Pevensey Levels, that are protected under international law). I am not satisfied that the proposals put forward by the landowner/developer will protect the site sufficiently, nor that any consideration whatsoever has been given to the wider environmental impact of concreting over such a large area of land.

This is a peaceful and attractive area of Bexhill, and has an iimportant historical background because of the continuing links to De la Warr Estate, and should therefore be protected by becoming a conservation area.

In general, brownfield sites are clearly preferable to the despoiling of further parts of the countryside (as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework, paras 17, 89 and 111).