MOD 7.8

The identification of Bexhill to accommodate additional housing is assessed in the Councils "Housing Delivery in Bexhill and Hastings" and its "Transport Study" undertaken in June and July 2013.The Housing Delivery report concluded. "A number of benchmarks would indicate that it will be challenging to consistently deliver more than 200 homes pa, year in year out, both because of market capacity; and the potential impact on sales values of new homes, if the market is relatively oversupplied, since this will act as a deterrent to high volumes of new building". Bexhill has only twice in the last 20 years delivered 200 units plus pa.

The Councils LDF Sensitivity Assessment( July 2013) into the impact of various combinations of development in Bexhill Hasting area concluded that the main capacity constraint in the local Glyne Gap area is the A259 Glyne Gap link. The greater scale of housing in each of the scenarios assessed inevitably generates more traffic on the local network, which will have detrimental effects leading to some junctions on the A259 operating over capacity by 2028.For each of the scenarios assessed, congestion is visible at junctions along the major routes through the urban areas. Congestion in Bexhill occurs at some arms of junctions, notably along the A259 west of the town centre and also on a section of the A259.

The report states that there are "apparent capacity issues with the A259 west of town centre and suggests further modelling is required. That work will need to be undertaken with the Highway Agency who are responsible for the A259 west of town centre. "Subject to this,the implications for housing may be to limit the scale of housing served by the A259 west of the town centre".

Congestion in Hasting is centred along the A259 , around Baldslow and junctions along B2159 and A21 through Hollington. This combined with the English Nature objections to development at Breadsell Farm makes the Council figure of 250 dwellings unjustified and ineffective and this figure should therefore be removed.

MOD 7.8 pg33.
This deprivation of Hastings and Bexhill is caused by the marketing of everything; we have the wrong idea about growth? Building houses seems to be what everybody believes will sort the economy out, but it just delays the crash; the higher things go the further they will fall, so we should stop the problem before it starts.
We have young and elderly people suffering from mental depression, people can't save for their pensions, what do these modifications do for them?
The plans that Rother are trying to put forward can only make things worse.
The large proposed development areas such as North Bexhill off the link road need to be offered as a site where people can grow, play and live in an oasis of peace.
Work units can only cost a few thousand pounds, yet we have sea space inviting big businesses to invest in the area at rents that one can rarely afford, having paid a development value for the land, let's put out a new plan. Consider the document, 'Protect our Open Spaces', we should have a referendum on this document before the idea goes to the full council. At the Link Road enquiry I asked what the County Council were paying for the land they were compulsory purchasing; they replied 'agricultural value'.
With 10,000 unemployed and 4,000 on the housing waiting list, we should do the same for the sake of Rother and Hastings; we should look at land reform on a national scale, start here? Stack the houses, create a community farm and have an elderly people's village!
The strategy as it stands will create debt and despair. It is unsound and Hastings is the same, you are all supposed to be working together, but it would appear a few are not co-operating, are they the ones who are making the decisions?

This point also applies to MOD 7.4, pg.36 regarding Battle and Rye, MOD 11.3 pg.70 Policy BA1 for Battle.

Mod 12.5 pg81, figure 12,
The extra houses should be given to the villages (from Udimore onwards) which could all take 20 houses under the Trust scheme; villages are desperate for homes for locals, unless we build something for them they will become fully occupied by elderly residents.
If you move on 30 years, as the generations die off properties will be bought by the buy to let companies because the local people won't be able to purchase them, in turn they will be let out at outrageous rents that only drug addicts and people who receive benefits can live for, do we want that?

MOD 12.5 pg80 Policy RA1

Each village could take a number of houses under the Land Community Trusy instead of the 1 or 2 mentioned in the Rother Core Strategy Modifications.

Chapter 8 vii 'Provide for employment and housing growth'

Employment work units and shops should be pursued which are affordable for any starter businesses. If the council control the sites and sell these units for cost for new people then the council will have control to monitor these people and see what is happening within businesses, this also means that the extra land can be rented rather than put on the market to be unused or misused.

Supplementary information submitted with the representation can be found here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20689
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20673