Development and Site Allocation Local Plan
"DaSA" Consultation and General Observations

As indicated above I write with reference to the Local Plan Consultation and because the forms supplied by Rother do not cover the points set out below, I summarise my views like this:-

1. A proper Bexhill By-Pass is required before further large scale development is given planning permission locally,

2. Bexhill companies, firms and individuals are effectively excluded from involvement with large scale development in the town, to the detriment of everyone who lives here.

Taking these two points in turn:-

1. DaSA Appendix A refers to residential targets for Bexhill for the period 2011-2018. The overall target is 3,100 dwellings of which 2056 have been agreed or approved. Rother appears to have received a demand from Central Government to construct or permit the construction of a specific number of dwellings in our local authority district and in particular the town of Bexhill. This demand, at least in part, seems to be a cure for the housing crisis resulting from uncontrolled immigration over the last 20 years. The relationship between National and Local Government should be based on mutual support and respect of each other's role in society. If Westminster withholds support and at the same time demands action by Local Authorities to rectify Westminster's failures it will be completely unacceptable to established residents throughout the UK. Locally the major road system is completely inadequate. A great deal of preliminary work was carried out with a view to constructing a proper Bexhill and Hastings by-pass but the proposals were suddenly cancelled twenty years ago.

The major coastal road through Bexhill and Hastings, the A259, was inadequate in the 1990s. As we approach the 2020s the local arterial road system is so clogged that the suggestion in DaSA for Site BX116 is for the new road link to the proposed 160 dwellings is to avoid the A259. Instead of that obvious route, the access recommended is along the wholly inadequate alternative of Spindlewood and Meads Road into the middle of Little Common.

Rother must respond to Westminster's demand for more housing in Bexhill by reminding the Government that it has failed to provide a by-pass for the town and that until that is done there can be no further large scale development locally.

2. Whenever a reasonably sized development site becomes available in Bexhill, it seems that the developers and builders are from outside the area. This operates to the great disadvantage of local residents and in particular local businesses. A developer from elsewhere has no lasting interest in Bexhill, beyond the desire to ensure that the exercise produces as much profit as possible. This inevitably results in high density standardised housing with rooms of an inadequate size.

Local architects, builders, electricians, plumbers and so on tend not to be involved with new residential sites. Nor can people commission the construction of their own homes. If, for example, the site identified in DaSA BX 116 is considered suitable for development, at some time in the future, it would be best if the land is earmarked for division into reasonably sized plots to be sold individually. In that way Bexhill's architects, builders and tradesmen will be gainfully employed to the advantage of the town, and all who live here.