The information on the website includes references to the, now defunct, Fairlight Neighbourhood plan and its associated survey which is quoted to support the arguments for developing the site. In particular figures are cited such as "the majority of respondents supported the development of a mix of housing types in the parish.." However this is disingenuous, to say the least. If the Neighbourhood Plan survey is used to support the case there should be honesty about its findings. Firstly 815 surveys were distributed but only 120 were returned, a response rate of a mere 15%. "A majority of responses" is therefore only 61 people. Drawing any conclusions from such a small sample is irresponsible.

Even if the survey response is relevant it is dishonest to use its contents selectively. For example nowhere is quoted a key finding from the survey that:

"A majority of respondents have indicated no desire for supporting development in the Parish".

The issue here is not really whether the Neighbourhood Plan survey can be used to support the development or not. Rather it is about the integrity of the case. The selective use and manipulation of evidence to suit a case does not lend itself to future trust in the proposals.

The site is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and building upon it would seriously degrade the natural environment in the area.

The plan states that Fairlight already has a larger population than other villages but with relatively fewer services and less infrastructure. The local infrastructure is barely adequate for the current population and would be strained further by an additional 30 houses. Schools are not available for the new resident children, the narrow local roads are currently difficult to negotiate at times due to traffic, the bus service is minimal. The proposed development will inevitably lead to increased car traffic with the attendant noise, air pollution and congestion.

There are serious drainage issues on the proposed site, that have precluded development in the past, and the capacity of the local waste water and sewerage services to cope with 30 extra dwellings is doubtful.

Infrastructure enhancements are generally a welcome addition to a community. A new GP surgery, with rehabilitation beds etc, is a key element of the development and sounds like a very good idea. I have been professionally involved with developments such as these for many years, including the most successful one in the country, a national exemplar and "Vanguard Site" on the North Kent coast. The majority of these proposals fail to materialise, or take a number of years to become operational. The reasons are several and varied and include:

* the inability to attract the necessary number of GPs and even more critically, the support staff and specialisms needed (This area has a particularly bad record at attracting staff).
* the need for the facilities to be properly commissioned by the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group and be supported by other healthcare providers such as local GPs, hospitals and other services who will be affected either because their provision overlaps with the new proposals, or because funds will need to be diverted to finance the new facilities
* the need for any such developments to be included in the long-term planning arrangements of the NHS which will require the preparation of a detailed business case and agreement across the NHS planning footprint