Your Ref. 6.3.5/DaSA OPO Consultation
Rother District Council
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Options and Preferred Options Consultation.

I received a letter informing me of the above just before Christmas. I chose not to look at these plans until the new year to minimise impact through the festive period. For the past month, I have been perusing the document in order to respond, I trust you will take the time to read my response in full.

a) For future consideration, I request that the Planning Department does not send out information of such a nature prior to Christmas. I feel it is quite thoughtless to have little consideration for existing inhabitants of the area.

b) Secondly, I discover, however, that there seems to be little knowledge of this document locally and those people it affects in the immediate area of Watermill Lane have not received the communication I received. This can hardly be called a consultation period. Why were letters not received by many existing inhabitants of the area?

c) I can only respond directly to my immediate area but I am sure that many points will be generic in their content.

d) I understand that there are three options, one of which will go ahead regardless of public consultation, and that Option1 is the preferred option. Is this correct?

e) Whilst I am not in favour of any development of this land, I understand the need for housing and can only hope that the council has made every effort to ensure that there is no available housing or sites lying empty which could be utilised within Bexhill and the surrounding area.

With reference to question numbers, I haven't come across any to respond to, I am simply responding to my reading of the document.

3.2 The North Bexhill Access road is identified as necessary to accommodate the scale of planned growth for Bexhill in highways terms.

SA7
Point 6: The timely delivery of the North Bexhill Access Road creates the basis for an accessible new development.

Comment: it would have been more open and honest for the council to have said at the time that the road was part of bigger plans to provide housing etc. in North Bexhill. I object to the way that existing inhabitants have been kept in the dark and have only been able to surmise what would happen. Working in partnership would be a better OPTION.

3.2 Relieving Sidley of significant through traffic.
Comment: The people of Sidley had a dreadful time when the link road was built. I distinctly remember hearing at a meeting that once it was completed Sidley would be showcased and put on the map again. This did not happen.

The access road will indeed take more traffic away from Sidley. Will planners please take a hard look at Sidley and work out ways in which 'The Heart of Sidley' can be supported, as well as being busy planning to urbanise rural areas?

3.2 P24 Restorative works in relation to Access Road
Comment:
Which area of grassland will be returned to the landowners for agricultural use following the completion of the Access Road?

3.3 Existing public footpaths

It is assumed that the potential exists to upgrade the existing footpaths within the study area to create new combined pedestrian/cycle routes in order to accord with the objective of creating a series of new traffic free routes.

Comment
Traffic free routes are good for ramblers, cyclists and dog walkers. Has there been any study to indicate the likely take up of pathways? Unless you belong to one of these groups, what is the likelihood of using these routes? (Certainly not shoppers who rely on vehicles to get them from a to b and carry goods.)

Do walkers and ramblers want to walk through built up areas as looks to be the case to the east of Watermill Lane? There is talk of a corridor of open space (3.6.3) but this does not seem to exist to the immediate north of Chetwynd as plans seem to indicate that land up to the boundary will be used for housing except for a path for walkers and cyclists.

How will the council ensure that existing and new paths will not be used by fun motorbike users?

3.5.2 Business development
Comment

I trust that the council has made sure that all available business floor space is being utilised in Bexhill town centre, Sidley and surrounding areas as the whole area is in need of regeneration regardless of what is being proposed?

I understand that Options 2 and 3 are not favoured because they include business areas which would be sited to the north of the Access Road and to date it is not known how much more business development will be needed.

3.6 'The LPCS requirement for business floor space has potentially been met at Bexhill by existing commitments.' However, I am aware that this land will be earmarked for development at a later date, as will those areas marked for housing in Options 2 and 3. Is this a fair conclusion?

3.5.3 Potential travellers site

Comment
I note that there is reference to a potential travellers' site in all options. This therefore reads as not being an option as with the whole of the plan to develop the rural area into an urban area. Is this correct?

Additional information see comments: page 14
SA3 Reduce crime and the fear of crime.

3.6. Development option 1
3.6.2 Access

Comment
Reference is made to at least one property outside the development area, in Ninfield Road being demolished for vehicular access. Have existing inhabitants been notified of this likelihood because they, like all existing inhabitants of the area, should be entitled to know what is being planned for them?


3.6.3 Green infrastructure

Para 3. 'The principle open space corridor running through the Development Option (1) is focussed along the Combe Haven and the existing watercourse to the west before it becomes Combe Haven. This maintains a substantial corridor of open space running in an east west direction through the study area connecting ... Combe Haven Park'

Comment

If I am reading this correctly the open space corridor is cut short in the vicinity of Chetwynd as the field adjacent is shaded yellow and the key states 'potential residential area.' (p29)

However, on p81 the area is marked protect and enhance wildlife inhabitants. Is housing planned up to the proposed traffic free route on the northern boundary line of the property? Please clarify. If so, why weren't the existing owners of the land notified of this development?

In Dev Option 1 the land to the west of Chetwynd is at present privately owned fields with stables. This is shown as two shades of green on Option 1 plan. On p68 the plan highlights the main part of the land to 'protect and enhance wildlife habitats.' Is this correct and if so what does it mean for the existing owners? Is it proposed that the land will be taken to protect and enhance wildlife habitats? Please clarify.

4.7
A significant increase in public open space in this part of Bexhill will have a positive impact on the health and well-being of both existing and new residents. (SA2)

Comment
Is this fact or opinion? Have existing residents been asked for their views? I object to being included in this statement.

I would like it to be noted that when any development is planned, be it for a road, housing or business that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way in which councils, planners and developers go about their planning. It appears to be devious and underhand and is done to communities, I guess all over the country, causing a great deal of stress and anxiety to existing residents and land owners. It's this tough luck attitude, we're going to make money out of this attitude, we don't care about you attitude. Please put it on an agenda to be discussed.

5.3 Preferred development option
The incoming and existing residents in the area will both benefit from the new infrastructure opportunities ...

Comment

The assumption is made that existing residents will benefit ... I object to being include in this statement. Has any research been carried out?

6.1.4 Quality of architecture
This refers to 'the architectural design of the new dwellings overlooking the NBAR' which will be an extremely important consideration particularly for 'people approaching the town on foot from the existing public footpaths.'

Comment
I suggest that the future inhabitants of these new areas will not mainly be walking into Sidley and Bexhill as implied but to the nearest bus stop if they do not own a car. The distance and the hilly nature of the area will prohibit much walking into town. (fact)

7.2
Comment
I understand that this report by CAS Environmental has been prepared to advise and assist RDC to consider the most appropriate form of development ... that the council should consider the recommendations for inclusion within the forthcoming Development and Site Allocations Plan, which it will need to consult widely on.

I trust that consultation will be widely publicised.