DaSA paragraphs 6.27 and 6.31 outline the circumstances that might permit risk to a SSSI where there is a strong presumption against any development and could be considered only where there are no alternative solutions and the work is required for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest.

The choice of the site on pages 142-146 has not been justified as being appropriate and no reasonable alternative sites have been considered.

The site, that clearly has many different environmental challenges associated with it, is being promoted as suitable for development. A considerable number of conditions for development are outlined that will clearly be expensive if they were to implemented and must put at risk the requirement for 30% affordable housing since the overheads will need to be amortised over the total intended build. RDC already has an excessive house price to earnings ratio of 9.27 (paragraph 4.3) and promoting such a complex set of conditions for this site can only add significantly to costs of this proposed development.

The perceived constraints applicable to such a sensitive and challenging (not unreasonably described as highly unsuitable) site that would be faced by a developer are contained in Policy BEX9. Unfortunately 2 of the most important are absent, namely the critical need to ensure no pollution leaves the site during construction and, the even more necessary, binding legal arrangements for maintenance of the SUDs over the lifetime of the development (at least 50 years?). While these aspects are covered in Policy DEN5 (ii) and (v) they have not been made explicit with regard to the Spindlewood Site. This renders this proposal ineffective as the necessary delivery partners are absent.

This document section is therefore considered unsound in that there are inconsistencies within it with respect to site BEX9 that has not been shown to be necessary in the over-riding public interest (indeed over 1500 objections to it have been made by the public). Furthermore, the provisions laid down for protection of the Pevensey Levels are woefully inadequate to insure their freedom from pollution from the site and appear at odds with the RDC legal responsibilities for protection of this SSSI.

The promotion of such a site is not consistent with national policy where the presumption of development clearly does not apply.

The proposed build of 160 dwellings represents only 5% of the total planned for Bexhill and could be accommodated elsewhere on sites that do not offer the same risks, legal complexities and costs as BEX9.

This site/policy should be deleted from DaSA.