Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 23116

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Susan Caie

Representation Summary:

BX124 (option 3) would have less strain on infrastructure and ease congestion (A259-Little Common).

1.BX124 is a fresh site so development would not impinge on other's lives.

2.Local amenities can be built for use of residents.

3.Access would relieve A259 congestion.

4.An extension of NBAR from St Mary's Lane westwards to the A259 near the Lamb at Hooe would effectively create a bypass for Little Common.

5.Development at BX124 could be extended at a future date.

6.Residents from BX124 requiring amenities would be able to achieve speedier access via NBAR.

7.Commercial developments in BX124 would provide employment for some.


Full text:

I agree with RDC's proposed development at BX124 as it is an ideal site for this purpose. Indeed, there is even more potential for development here by pursuing option 3. This would be beneficial not only to people living in the new development in BX124 but improve the quality of life for those people living elsewhere in Bexhill. The main reasons for this would be less strain on local infrastructure and an easing of congestion on the A259 through Little Common.

1. The main advantage of BX124 is that it is a fresh site so development would not impinge on other people's lives as there is nobody already living there.

2. Local amenities can be built as required for the express use of BX124 residents.

3. Access to and from BX124 via NBAR would not add to but actually relieve the congestion on the A259 nor would it increase traffic pollution on that road.

4. An extension of NBAR from St Mary's Lane westwards to the A259 near the Lamb at Hooe would effectively create a bypass for Little Common with all the benefits involved not only for people living in Little Common but people simply using the A259 to travel from east to west and vice versa. This should be built and paid for by the developer.

5. Development at BX124 could be extended if necessary at a future date even if there are no more suitable sites identified in Bexhill itself.

6. Residents from BX124 requiring amenities (Conquest Hospital, railway stations, shops, GP surgeries) would be able to achieve speedier access via NBAR than if development were to take place in any other areas of Bexhill.

7. Commercial developments in BX124 would provide employment for some residents again reducing the need for travel and therefore congestion.

8. A sustainable community with its own amenities could be developed in BX124 with a resulting sense of community and belonging. This would not adversely affect the lives of other Bexhill residents in the way that further development in Little Common or Bexhill would.

Environmentally it makes sound sense to develop BX124 option 3 and not build any more large developments in Little Common.