One recognises that Bexhill would benefit greatly from enhanced economic development. Whilst the sea front and areas of west Bexhill are quite delightful, the town centre and other areas are decidedly run-down. The town and whole Rother district needs significant investment especially in transport infrastructure if we are to attract new employers, and their employees, into the district.

But with roads and other essential infrastructure, RDC is putting the cart before the horse. Develop the infrastructure first, then housing and business development. Let's have it, bring it on, we need to revitalise Bexhill but get the planning in the right order, please.

With regard to the sites proposed for development at some stage in the future I have these comments:

It is appreciated that central government is placing local authorities under great pressure to meet remotely-set housing targets. Whilst RDC cannot ignore these mandates it must keep in mind that its foremost duty is to protect the interests of its local communities and their quality of life. We rightfully expect our councillors and their staffs to robustly defend local interests and not become the submissive servants of distant political masters (and mistresses).

With regard to housing targets is it essential that RDC is open and honest with its residents about the overall planning aims, numbers of properties demanded and proposed, and the rationale for site assessments. We all would like to be assured that RDC's arithmetic is correct and is openly presented to the public. I understand there are some concerns about the numbers presented as future requirements and their reconciliation with already permitted developments, windfall developments and so on. So, please ensure that the primary aim is to serve the interests of RDC residents whilst paying regard to government pressure.

There is great variation in the nature of some of the proposed sites. Some in Bexhill town look to be very well-suited to redevelopment: those on Terminus Road (BEX8), Drill Hall (BEX4), Gullivers Bowls Club (BEX5). Each of these could be low impact and highly beneficial for new residents coming to them.

Those for larger developments deserve more careful consideration.

The BX124 NBAR development has the scope to be an exciting and extensive new development where there is great scope for the proposed numbers of properties and more, in certain areas. See my comments on Q29 for some elaboration on this subject.

The same could be said for the BX101 Northeye brownfield site, which also offers open space and flexibility in its design, also offering scope for expansion. This derelict brownfield site is just the sort of place we should be seeking to redevelop, it would enhance the immediate local area and save green space where possible.

Overall though, the DaSA plan highlights need for a northern bypass for the Little Common area - linking the NBAR across to the west to join the A259 near the Lamb Inn. Some proposed developments, such as BEX9/BX116 only threaten to further overload the A259 and the limited local services of Little Common. I am, therefore, opposed to BEX9/BX116 in its entirety and state my reasons in depth in my answer to Question 35.