QUESTION 27: Do you agree with the preferred sites for housing development at Bexhill? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 91

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 21979

Received: 21/12/2016

Respondent: L J Long

Representation Summary:

I wish to register my strong protest against the extra housing developments being considered by Rother District Council.

I refer to the Bexhill West Housing Options BX101a at the site of the Old Northeye Prison, and BX116 - land off Spindlewood Drive.

It is bad enough that the existing Barnhorn Green Housing Development, includes no extra services such as school and doctors surgery, and will add to the traffic congestion on the A259 towards Little Common, but two more housing developments is crass stupidity without an additional bypass road.

Full text:

I wish to register my strong protest against the extra housing developments being considered by Rother District Council.

I refer to the Bexhill West Housing Options BX101a at the site of the Old Northeye Prison, and BX116 - land off Spindlewood Drive.

It is bad enough that the existing Barnhorn Green Housing Development, includes no extra services such as school and doctors surgery, and will add to the traffic congestion on the A259 towards Little Common, but two more housing developments is crass stupidity without an additional bypass road.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 21980

Received: 22/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Kevin Long

Representation Summary:

The proposed housing development at Northeye Prison and land off Spindlewood Drive must not be allowed to proceed.

The inevitable increase in traffic generated by this development will make the A259 congestion even more intolerable.

It is of paramount importance that the local transport congestion problems are addressed before further building.

It is commonly accepted that traffic conditions both sides of Little Common roundabout have become a nightmare. The Barnhorn Green development go ahead should also be reviewed.

All this is without taking into account the environmental and nature considerations, especially south of Barnhorn Road.

Full text:

The proposed housing development at the site of the old Northeye Prison and land
off Spindlewood Drive must not be allowed to proceed.

The inevitable increase in traffic generated by this development will make the A259
congestion even more intolerable than at present.

It is of paramount importance that the local transport congestion problems are
addressed before further building development is allowed.

It is commonly accepted that traffic conditions both sides of Little Common
roundabout have become a nightmare. The Barnhorn Green development go ahead
should also be reviewed in the light of the increased traffic since approval and the
lack of any new infrastructure.

These future building development plans should be nipped in the bud and minds
should be concentrating on getting the horrendous local road problems sorted before
anything like these plans should be considered.

All this is without taking into account the environmental and nature considerations,
especially south of Barnhorn Road where there are woods and nature reserves, barn
owls, bats etc that we can ill afford to lose. We don't want our coastline to end up as
one big housing development.

For some reason Rother District Council has decided that it is OK to saturate certain
parts of Bexhill with new housing whilst other parts of Rother virtually escape
completely.

I, therefore, strongly object to the above proposal.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22018

Received: 04/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Charles Coombes

Representation Summary:

NO. Only those that are on Brownfield sites and inside the existing defined planning boundary.
Therefore preferred sites are BX101, BX85, BX4, BX50 and BX81

Full text:

NO. Only those that are on Brownfield sites and inside the existing defined planning boundary.
Therefore preferred sites are BX101, BX85, BX4, BX50 and BX81

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22059

Received: 11/01/2017

Respondent: Mr David Ellery

Representation Summary:

This land would not be suitable to build on. The adjoining land (ref BX113) (greenfield site, Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm) has been possibly allocated as a recycling plant. Therefore, this could be a possible heath hazard to any residents living nearby. If a developer took this on, I would think there would be many houses unsold.

Being so near to the access road, the main access should be towards this road. This would allow public transport into the site. People would have to pass the recycling plant, which is not a good idea.

Full text:

This land would not be suitable to build on. The adjoining land (ref BX113) (greenfield site, Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm) has been possibly allocated as a recycling plant. The final decision for this is to be decided by somebody else. Therefore, this could be a possible heath hazard to any residents living nearby. If a developer took this on, I would think there would be many houses unsold.

Being so near to the access road, the main access should be towards this road. This would allow public transport into the site. I am not so sure buses would go up to Watergate. People would have to pass the recycling plant, which is not a good idea.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22060

Received: 11/01/2017

Respondent: Mr David Allen

Representation Summary:

BX116 should be removed.

Although some reference is made to traffic, no solution is offered, no attempt made to quantify the impact of proposals.

The traffic impact note does little to relieve concern. (does not meet requirements of Guidance on Transport Assessment-DoT_2007.) The housing data does not reflect DaSA figures and no reference to industrial development.
No consideration of impacts of new junction/lights required from Barnhorn Green, the pedestrian crossings and the existing primary school.

If presumption is in favour of housing development, it is illogical/inconsistent not to have presumption in favour of infrastructure. Particularly road capacity to meet demand.

Full text:

I do not agree with the preferred sites for housing development. The BX116 site should be removed from the list.

Overall Comment
Although some reference is made to traffic no solution is offered nor attempt made to quantify the impact of the development proposed sites. Based on the figures published in 2011 for the link road submission this overall level of development is likely to increase the traffic of the A259 by between 14000 and 20000 vehicles per day. Current levels of traffic measured on the A259 provided by Highways England show a figure of 21500 vehicles per day. Based on the figures given in TA79/99 Part 3 the A259 through Little Common can be classed as Road Type UAP3 with a capacity limit of 900 vehicles per hour. Measured (by Highways England) peak traffic is recorded at 869 vehicles per hour and the total proposed new build will add at least 171 vehicles/hr, more likely a total of up to 1200 vehicles per hour will be reached, leading to gross overloading of the road and roundabout at Little Common. As regular drivers along this route will know the eastbound flow in 2015 often has mile long queues and the westbound flow queues can be in the order of 0.5 miles.

A late appearance of a note about the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed developments does little to relieve the concern. (This document does not meet the full requirements of Guidance on TransportAssessment - DoT 2007.) There are a number of reasons for this. The housing data does not reflect that current figures used elsewhere in the DaSA documentation and there is no reference to any industrial development that is considered so important to the mix. The traffic is assumed to be all cars whereas the road carries a significant portion of HGVs and regular buses that add to the volume and delays experienced by users at present.

No effort has been made to consider the combined impact of the new junction/lights required to provide access to and egress from Barnhorn Green (already granted planning permission) nor the pedestrian crossings before and after the roundabout and that a primary school is also situated close to the roundabout. Surprisingly all the data used assumes that all approach roads to the roundabout have a 99999 vehicle per hour capacity. This is clearly incorrect as the A259 has a capacity limit of 900 vehicles per hour and the minor road much less.

To show traffic exceeding a realistic limit makes the results of this study count for little. As is already experienced by A259 users queue lengths can be long without the impact of the new road junction and traffic lights west of the Little
Common roundabout.

Please see more detailed comment and analysis in the submitted appendix - http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=27252.

Making provision for Population Movements

If the presumption is now in favour of (housing) development then it is illogical and inconsistent not to have a presumption in favour of infrastructure development also. In particular the need to enhance road capacity to meet the expected demand new development generates.

The only sensible way to improve capacity for viable longer term traffic flow across Bexhill is to provide a new northern bypass between, say, the Lamb Inn and the Ninfield Road so linking with the new western extension from the Link Road. Undoubtedly such new construction of this nature should be part funded by the CIL raised from developers. This would be easier if the developments permitted were to follow round the north along the route of such a new road and make sites such as BX101 and BX 80 more accessible.

This approach has already been outlined in the adopted Core Strategy that states:

8.12 Growth also provides an opportunity for the town. Development has been focused on urban redevelopment in recent years, as limited transport capacity on the A259 to Hastings has frustrated new sites being developed. A high proportion of this has been flatted schemes, often for older people. However, there is the potential for sustainable urban extensions, subject to additional traffic capacity.

8.47 Housing growth may both stimulate business development as well as help otherwise achieve the vision for the town. However, large-scale growth would not be consistent with the objective of retaining its essential character, nor with the commercial property market. Even within these other sustainability parameters, the very limited highway capacity, primarily along the A259 trunk road towards Hastings but extending through the town, is a real constraint upon development at present.

8.56 Development to the west of Little Common, both north and south of Barnhorn Road (A259), will also be considered. Again, the area enjoys an attractive pastoral character, but without impacting on the wider landscape for the greater part. It also benefits from reasonable access to shops and services at the Little Common district centre.

Access would need to be created directly off the A259, supplemented by existing estate roads. Whydown Road and Sandhurst Lane are unsuitable access roads.
There appears to be little point in having a strategy published and approved if some of its fundamental points are to be ignored.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22094

Received: 19/01/2017

Respondent: Mrs Stella Stone

Representation Summary:

Council should look at the Coombe Valley carriageway surrounding land for development.

The creation of new village here would solve many problems.

Highways Authority need to build a new road from Combe Valley across Pevensey Marshes, which would take traffic off Barnhorn Road.

Council should look at UAE site(brownfield) over greenfield development.

Entrance to site (BEX9)should be from Barnhorn Manor, with exit from Upper Barnhorn Manor in line with 'Core Strategy' (Para 8.56) all future developments should be off—A259.

Council should be aware of strength of opinion against housing being built in inappropriate areas and infrastructure problems this will cause.

Full text:

Rother Council should look at the newly created Coombe Valley dual carriageway
with associated land on either side of the road for future housing developments.

The creation of an entirely new village off of Coombe Valley with its own schools,
businesses, shops, GP surgeries, dentists and pharmacies would solve many of
the problems within the local area.

The Highways Authority needs to build a new link road from Combe Valley across
to the Pevensey Marshes, which would effectively take some of the traffic off of
the already overcrowded Barnhorn Road. The Government has said that it will
provide additional funding for major pinch points in the country and certainly
Little Common and Barnhorn Road would have a major case for requesting such
funding.

The Council should look at the old UAE site at Pevensey (the old prison formerly
known as Northeye BXIOI, which is a brown field site), which should take
precedence over any new developments on green field sites.

The entrance to the proposed site should be from Barnhorn Manor, off of
Barnhorn Road, with the exit from Upper Barnhorn Manor in line with the
Council's previous documentation 'Rother Local Core Strategy', paragraph 8.56,
which clearly states that all future developments should be off of Barnhorn Road
— the A259.

Whilst, of course, I understand the pressures from National Government on local
Councils for the ever increasing need for housing and, in particular social
housing, the Council needs to be aware of the strength of opinion against
housing being built in inappropriate areas of Bexhill and the ensuing
infrastructure problems that this will cause.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22128

Received: 29/01/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Day

Representation Summary:

No I do not agree with the proposed sites. The Spindlewood Drive site, is not viable due to poor infrastructure and the preferred sites would be - BX124 North Bexhill access road and BX101 Northeye

Full text:

No I do not agree with the proposed sites. The Spindlewood Drive site, is not viable due to poor infrastructure and the preferred sites would be - BX124 North Bexhill access road and BX101 Northeye.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22131

Received: 29/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Timothy Day

Representation Summary:

I do not agree the proposed development at Spindlewood Drive. Site BX124 would be preferable as the infrastructure is already there to cope with increased traffic and it would be easier for residents to get into Bexhill or St Leonard's and have access to the A21 for getting into Kent.
BX101 is also a preferred option as it is a brownfield site.

Full text:

I do not agree the proposed development at Spindlewood Drive. Site BX124 would be preferable as the infrastructure is already there to cope with increased traffic and it would be easier for residents to get into Bexhill or St Leonard's and have access to the A21 for getting into Kent.
BX101 is also a preferred option as it is a brownfield site.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22144

Received: 31/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Martin Bisset

Representation Summary:

BX116-Planning applications have been refused in the past. Nothing has changed.

Area is further bounded by a Dansar site and is home to 2000 species. Would cause water/light pollution.

The approach to the site is poor. Cooden Sea Road/Meads Road junction is dangerous.

Meads Road is narrow. Maple walk is a private road.

Poor infrastructure of Little Common.

Developing BX116 will lead to further development of adjacent fields.

Risk of flooding (flood height of 1.75metres)

Air pollution from queues along the A259 is extremely high.

There are more suitable sites-BX124-number of houses could be increased. Better local infrastructure.

BX1OI-brownfield site.

Full text:

Question 27.

Comments in relation to the Spindlewood Drive site known as BX116.

Planning applications on this site have been refused in the past both at local level and at appeal. RR/1999/1643P and RPJ1999122701P to name but two. Nothing has changed since then. On appeal the Inspector categorically stated that the land was 'Coddled and not suitable for building'. So why spend taxpayers money on pursuing such a hopeless cause when more suitable brown field sites are readily
available?

Rother District Council should be reminded that this site has long been controversial. Questions of the relationships between Developers and Rother District Council Planners were raised in The House of Commons by Charles Wardle MP, 9th May 200lHansard Col. 2401241/242. See alleged corruption between the land owner Ward-Jones and Jolly and Eades. publications.parliament.uk

Rother District Council Planners should be advised to stay well clear of this site for that reason alone.

The area bounded by Spindlewood Drive and Maple Walk is a green and pastoral site and is further bounded by a Dansar site. A site of extreme scientific interest and one of only three Dansar sites in the United Kingdom. It is home to over 2000 species of which several are protected and endangered. Namely the Fen Raft spider and the Crested Newt. To encroach in any way on this land would be a crime and
totally against the Environmental Policy of Rother District Council. Any development on the adjacent green field would cause water pollution to this very sensitive site. Light pollution would encroach on the habitat of several species of bat. There are several Badger sets.

The road access approach to the proposed site is poor. Increased traffic flow would again be dangerous. The Cooden Sea Road junction with Meads Road is dangerous due to the very poor site lines. Vehicles have to be in the traffic before they are sighted.

Meads Road is narrow, in part yellow lined but does provide car parking space which is extremely limited in Little Common. The road construction is of concrete slab which is already damaged and is flapping and is not suitable for heavy vehicles. This would have to be rebuilt at considerable cost to East Sussex. Maple walk is a private road. The residents pay for upkeep. It is single lane with no passing points in part.

The proposed Spindlewood Drive access is les than fifty feet from Meads Road. To tight for heavy goods vehicles. There are poor sight lines. There is no where for construction traffic to park. Parking in Spindlewood Drive which is narrow would not be acceptable.

The infrastructure of Little Common is poor. Local schools are overflowing. The Doctors Surgery is at capacity. There is a four day wait for prescriptions at the Pharmacy already. Car parking facilities in Little Common are almost non existent. There is no work in Little Common for any new residents. All new residents would have to travel to neighbouring towns or beyond. Only achievable via the A259 which
is already beyond capacity. Long queues to the Little Common roundabout exist at all times of day. The area needs a bypass. A link from the new link road (Bexhill - Hastings) to Beyond the Lamb Inn on the A259.

Considering developing BX116 will lead to the further development of the adjacent fields which I note have been enumerated in the plan. This would lead to a development of more than 600 houses bounded by Cooden Sea Road and Clavering Way. The service and hence spine road to such a development would be Meads Road which for all the reasons stated would be totally unsuitable.

Rother District Council please consult your own reports as to the risk of flooding in this area. The report you commissioned in 2008 models a flood height of 1.75 metres on the adjacent Golf Course if the shingle at Cooden Beach were overtopped. You should be reminded of Global warming and the increase in sea
level. My home in La Faute sur Mer, France was flooded by a Spring tide surge caused by a severe storm. 29 people drowned in their beds, 1000 homes were destroyed, 86 died in total from Tempete Xynthia. The mayor, his assistant and the town planners all went to jail - building on a flood plain - manslaughter.

Air pollution from the traffic queues along the A259 is extremely high and is not monitored. This is a major health issue.

There are more suitable sites:
Namely Site BX124 adjacent to the new North Bexhill Access Road where under options 2 and 3 the number of houses could be significantly increased. Better local infrastructure, shops, schools, jobs, train stations and access to St Leonards and Hastings without using the A259.

Site BX1OI at Northeye which is a brownfield site.

Question 35

Amend the plan. Do not for all the reasons given develop the Spindlewood Drive site. It is a greenfield site and brownfleld sites are always the preferred option i.e.BX124 and BX 101.

In conclusion for all the reasons stated it would be detrimental to the village and residents of Little Common if the development at Spindlewood Drive was pursued further. As to the environment and the Dansar site this would be disastrous. If it were to go ahead could I suggest the purchase of four concrete cows to be sited on the Little Common Roundabout on a patch of artificial grass to remind our children
that this was once a green and pleasant land before the institution of absurd planning regulation and targets.

Rother District Council stand up for your own environmental policies.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22180

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Felix Caulfield

Representation Summary:

The proposed Spindlewood Drive site is totally unsuitable. It would change the whole character of Little Common. It would create great inconvenience and noise pollution during the build phase. Also Meads Road is too narrow (given the existing street parking) to accommodate heavy plant, etc. Furthermore, post development, the increased traffic flow, will lead to congestion in Cooden Sea Road and at Little Common Roundabout.

This development would put great strain on Little Common Services, particularly Little Common Surgery.

Full text:

The proposed Spindlewood Drive site is totally unsuitable. It would change the whole character of Little Common. It would create great inconvenience and noise pollution during the build phase. Also Meads Road is too narrow (given the existing street parking) to accommodate heavy plant, etc. Furthermore, post development, the increased traffic flow, will lead to congestion in Cooden Sea Road and at Little Common Roundabout.

This development would put great strain on Little Common Services, particularly Little Common Surgery.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22203

Received: 02/02/2017

Respondent: Ms Christine Stebbing

Representation Summary:

I object.

*Inclusion of site will lead to unstructured extension of Little Common.

*Thorough assessment of data is clear, site BEX9 (BEX6/BEX7/BEX10-BX101) is unnecessary. Council ignores significant/well-established trend of Windfalls.

*Spindlewood Drive is narrow, Meads Road-a narrow/poorly designed/inappropriate public highway-or the private road-Maple Walk (varying widths/no footpaths). The alternative (A259) is at capacity.

*Site provides a buffer between SSSI/RAMSAR/Pevensey Levels. Evidence of pollution entering the watercourse.

*Government policy directs Brownfield sites should be preferable choice. Inclusion of enlarged BX124 would avoid road access worse through Little Common. BX116 can then be eliminated.

BX116 should be removed and BX124 enlarged (Option3).

Full text:

I object strongly to the inclusion of site BX116 (Land at Spindlewood Drive) in the allocation of preferred sites for housing development Policy BEX9. I believe the inclusion of this site is ill conceived, ill considered, I'll prepared and inappropriate.
Reasons underpinning my objection include:

* Town and Country Planning principles: Inclusion of this site BX116 will lead to a further unstructured and discontinuous extension of Little Common towards the west. Such an extension of the urban landscape at the expense of the rural backdrop to Little Common will further intrude visually into the adjacent Sites of Special Scientific Interest and RAMSARS, would generate additional and unwelcome artificial lighting in an otherwise "dark space" (telescopes were installed nearby because of this "Dark Space). Further, the extension of large volume ribbon development along rural areas alongside or close to the A259 major roadway would be representative of urban development format discredited in the 1960s and has no place in desired urban planning for the 21st century when, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has made clear in policy statements, preference and priority should be given to the allocation of Brownfield Sites for new housing development.

* Site Allocation rationale: Sites have been included in the Options and Preferred Options documentation relating to the Core Strategy and Local Plan on the basis of an analysis of data prepared by the Rother Council Planning Department. It is submitted that this analysis is flawed. A more thorough assessment of the data published by the Council makes it clear that the need for site BX116 in Policy BEX9 (and other sites such as policies BEX6, BEX7 and BEX10-BX101) to be included in the ten year plan as proposed is quite unnecessary. The Council documentation ignores the significant and well established trend of so called Windfall Developments, which, as Rother data shows (Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory at 1st April 2016 document dated August 2016) considerably exceeds over an aggregate 10 year period the figure for such Windfall Developments included in the proposed plan. The scope and scale of such Windfall Developments is exampled in the Council's own data and can be seen recently in planning decisions and in new, but yet to be decided, applications since the consultation documents were released. It is submitted that the Council should take a realistic view of the impact on housing numbers over the plan period when assessing the need for site allocation and that if it does so then site BX116 can be eliminated from the list of possible sites.

* Transport: The Council cannot be serious in asserting, as it does in its consultation documentation, that site BX116 becomes viable for large scale housing development with a vehicular access solely from Spindlewood Drive. That road is already a narrow neighbourhood access road, leading to main transport routes via Meads Road - a narrow, poorly designed and inappropriate public highway - or via the even less appropriate unadopted private road that is Maple Walk. Maple Walk, in particular, is a "village lane" with varying widths, no footpaths, and no road substructure. It is maintained through the goodwill and expense of most local householders and it would be quite wrong for a development site to be allocated at BX116 when traffic serving such a development would impose a financial and maintenance burden of those fronting the nearby private road. The alternative of accessing the site from A259 Barnhorn Road is similarly flawed since that road is already at maximum capacity with further already approved housing developments certain to exacerbate the frequent long tailbacks and delays seen at and leading up to the junction of the A259 with Little Common roundabout. To have further large scale housing development along the A259 axis is symptomatic of a naïve and unstructured approach to planning designed to achieve one goal (housing numbers) at the expense of a range of other critical factors and to do so by inclusion of site BX116 will simply lead to bad urban planning in its wider and desirable sense.

* Little Common Environment: Site BX116 currently provides a visual green space buffer zone between the vital and important Sites of Special Scientific Interest and RAMSAR sites in and bordering Pevensey Levels. Already there has been erosion of that buffer zone and it is submitted that such erosion should be no longer tolerated. To omit development on Site BX116 and other nearby option sites would be an act of visible and practical support for the important local physical environment, and would be a testimony to a declared value for that extensive site, its ecology, its landscape and its flora and fauna (including a range of protected species including badgers and great crested newts). Allocation of site BX116 for housing would be an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into a very special area the progressive loss of which must be stopped. It was for such a reason that an Inspector previously removed site BX116 from a site allocation plan and it must be inconceivable that the conditions and arguments that led to that earlier decision should now be overturned by a decision to now allocate the site for housing development. It is submitted that, if anything, the previous reasons for removing the site from allocation have become even more significant. Moreover, Site BX116 is poorly located in terms of drainage. Current surface water drainage in the area - and in particular some properties fronting Maple Walk - uses an existing surface water stream. There is already evidence of polluted water entering that watercourse and thence reaching the SSSI and RAMSAR sites. Petroleum or oil based film can be seen on the surface of stream water. Local topography would result if Site BX116 surface water adding both volume and pollution to the existing system. Additional water volume would result in high flood risk and extra pollution would increase an already unwanted danger to protected sites and their ecology.

* Alternative sites: Policy BEX9 and site BX116 should not be an Option or a Preferred Option. Government policy directs that Brown Field sites should be the preferable choice for housing development. Even if such sites are unavailable - which cannot be plausible - and/or the current extremely low numbers of Windfall houses were to be accepted in the plan then the Site BX124 -the NBAR Site- offers significant and attractive scope to be developed larger than currently envisaged in the Council documentation. Site BX124 should be enlarged by the 215 houses as envisaged in BX124 Option3 , which would add to critical mass to become a viable local community within the broader boundary of Bexhill on Sea., This would be done in the context of pre-existing transport routes, local and sub-regional shopping ( e.g Tesco, Dunelm, garage showrooms etc, etc),and the new Primary School and large hospital in the nearby area. Further the inclusion of an enlarged BX124 would avoid making significantly worse the already overstretched east/west road access routes through Bexhill and Little Common. The additional integration into Bexhill of the northern developments around the Link Road should be welcomed and encouraged though the inclusion of the enlarged Site BX124. Site BX116 can then be eliminated from the site allocation programme.

Site BX116 should be removed from the Options and Preferred Options plan and Site BX124 enlarged with adoption of its Option3.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22208

Received: 02/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Hugh Stebbing

Representation Summary:

I object.

*Inclusion of site will lead to unstructured extension of Little Common.

*Thorough assessment of data is clear, site BEX9 (BEX6/BEX7/BEX10-BX101) is unnecessary. Council ignores significant/well-established trend of Windfalls.

*Spindlewood Drive is narrow, Meads Road-a narrow/poorly designed/inappropriate public highway-or the private road-Maple Walk (varying widths/no footpaths). The alternative (A259) is at capacity.

*Site provides a buffer between SSSI/RAMSAR/Pevensey Levels. Evidence of pollution entering the watercourse.

*Government policy directs Brownfield sites should be preferable choice. Inclusion of enlarged BX124 would avoid road access worse through Little Common. BX116 can then be eliminated.

BX116 should be removed and BX124 enlarged (Option3).

Full text:

I object strongly to the inclusion of site BX116 (Land at Spindlewood Drive) in the allocation of preferred sites for housing development Policy BEX9. I believe the inclusion of this site is ill conceived, ill considered, I'll prepared and inappropriate.
Reasons underpinning my objection include:

* Town and Country Planning principles: Inclusion of this site BX116 will lead to a further unstructured and discontinuous extension of Little Common towards the west. Such an extension of the urban landscape at the expense of the rural backdrop to Little Common will further intrude visually into the adjacent Sites of Special Scientific Interest and RAMSARS, would generate additional and unwelcome artificial lighting in an otherwise "dark space" (telescopes were installed nearby because of this "Dark Space). Further, the extension of large volume ribbon development along rural areas alongside or close to the A259 major roadway would be representative of urban development format discredited in the 1960s and has no place in desired urban planning for the 21st century when, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has made clear in policy statements, preference and priority should be given to the allocation of Brownfield Sites for new housing development.

* Site Allocation rationale: Sites have been included in the Options and Preferred Options documentation relating to the Core Strategy and Local Plan on the basis of an analysis of data prepared by the Rother Council Planning Department. It is submitted that this analysis is flawed. A more thorough assessment of the data published by the Council makes it clear that the need for site BX116 in Policy BEX9 (and other sites such as policies BEX6, BEX7 and BEX10-BX101) to be included in the ten year plan as proposed is quite unnecessary. The Council documentation ignores the significant and well established trend of so called Windfall Developments, which, as Rother data shows (Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory at 1st April 2016 document dated August 2016) considerably exceeds over an aggregate 10 year period the figure for such Windfall Developments included in the proposed plan. The scope and scale of such Windfall Developments is exampled in the Council's own data and can be seen recently in planning decisions and in new, but yet to be decided, applications since the consultation documents were released. It is submitted that the Council should take a realistic view of the impact on housing numbers over the plan period when assessing the need for site allocation and that if it does so then site BX116 can be eliminated from the list of possible sites.

* Transport: The Council cannot be serious in asserting, as it does in its consultation documentation, that site BX116 becomes viable for large scale housing development with a vehicular access solely from Spindlewood Drive. That road is already a narrow neighbourhood access road, leading to main transport routes via Meads Road - a narrow, poorly designed and inappropriate public highway - or via the even less appropriate unadopted private road that is Maple Walk. Maple Walk, in particular, is a "village lane" with varying widths, no footpaths, and no road substructure. It is maintained through the goodwill and expense of most local householders and it would be quite wrong for a development site to be allocated at BX116 when traffic serving such a development would impose a financial and maintenance burden of those fronting the nearby private road. The alternative of accessing the site from A259 Barnhorn Road is similarly flawed since that road is already at maximum capacity with further already approved housing developments certain to exacerbate the frequent long tailbacks and delays seen at and leading up to the junction of the A259 with Little Common roundabout. To have further large scale housing development along the A259 axis is symptomatic of a naïve and unstructured approach to planning designed to achieve one goal (housing numbers) at the expense of a range of other critical factors and to do so by inclusion of site BX116 will simply lead to bad urban planning in its wider and desirable sense.

* Little Common Environment: Site BX116 currently provides a visual green space buffer zone between the vital and important Sites of Special Scientific Interest and RAMSAR sites in and bordering Pevensey Levels. Already there has been erosion of that buffer zone and it is submitted that such erosion should be no longer tolerated. To omit development on Site BX116 and other nearby option sites would be an act of visible and practical support for the important local physical environment, and would be a testimony to a declared value for that extensive site, its ecology, its landscape and its flora and fauna (including a range of protected species including badgers and great crested newts). Allocation of site BX116 for housing would be an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion into a very special area the progressive loss of which must be stopped. It was for such a reason that an Inspector previously removed site BX116 from a site allocation plan and it must be inconceivable that the conditions and arguments that led to that earlier decision should now be overturned by a decision to now allocate the site for housing development. It is submitted that, if anything, the previous reasons for removing the site from allocation have become even more significant. Moreover, Site BX116 is poorly located in terms of drainage. Current surface water drainage in the area - and in particular some properties fronting Maple Walk - uses an existing surface water stream. There is already evidence of polluted water entering that watercourse and thence reaching the SSSI and RAMSAR sites. Petroleum or oil based film can be seen on the surface of stream water. Local topography would result if Site BX116 surface water adding both volume and pollution to the existing system. Additional water volume would result in high flood risk and extra pollution would increase an already unwanted danger to protected sites and their ecology.

* Alternative sites: Policy BEX9 and site BX116 should not be an Option or a Preferred Option. Government policy directs that Brown Field sites should be the preferable choice for housing development. Even if such sites are unavailable - which cannot be plausible - and/or the current extremely low numbers of Windfall houses were to be accepted in the plan then the Site BX124 -the NBAR Site- offers significant and attractive scope to be developed larger than currently envisaged in the Council documentation. Site BX124 should be enlarged by the 215 houses as envisaged in BX124 Option3 , which would add to critical mass to become a viable local community within the broader boundary of Bexhill on Sea., This would be done in the context of pre-existing transport routes, local and sub-regional shopping ( e.g Tesco, Dunelm, garage showrooms etc, etc),and the new Primary School and large hospital in the nearby area. Further the inclusion of an enlarged BX124 would avoid making significantly worse the already overstretched east/west road access routes through Bexhill and Little Common. The additional integration into Bexhill of the northern developments around the Link Road should be welcomed and encouraged though the inclusion of the enlarged Site BX124. Site BX116 can then be eliminated from the site allocation programme.

Site BX116 should be removed from the Options and Preferred Options plan and Site BX124 enlarged with adoption of its Option3.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22243

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: AmicusHorizon Ltd (Rother Homes)

Representation Summary:

Yes to Option A but with the ability to add more sites that have not been identified in this plan.

Full text:

Yes to Option A but with the ability to add more sites that have not been identified in this plan.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22288

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Walter

Representation Summary:

I believe that the Spindlewood Road site should NOT be considered as a possible site for development. I think that brownfield sites should always be preferred to greenfield sites as stated in the National Planning Policy framework document.

Full text:

I believe that the Spindlewood Road site should NOT be considered as a possible site for development. I think that brownfield sites should always be preferred to greenfield sites as stated in the National Planning Policy framework document.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22309

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Burnett

Representation Summary:

Sites at BX 30, BX 64, BX 81, BX 116 seem to be the least suitable sites for expansion as per the existing suggestions. Reasons for caution: too high density; too much new traffic created; too much wildlife disturbed or destroyed; too little parking provision; 44% new housing stock deemed too small as per GIA (Gross Internal Area) requirements; inadequate green spaces; insufficient play areas; insufficient elderly and mobility-impaired homes; too much noise and light pollution; too much risk of flooding and not adequately addressed!

Full text:

Sites at BX 30, BX 64, BX 81, BX 116 seem to be the least suitable sites for expansion as per the existing suggestions. Reasons for caution: too high density; too much new traffic created; too much wildlife disturbed or destroyed; too little parking provision; 44% new housing stock deemed too small as per GIA (Gross Internal Area) requirements; inadequate green spaces; insufficient play areas; insufficient elderly and mobility-impaired homes; too much noise and light pollution; too much risk of flooding and not adequately addressed!

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22335

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: mrs sally newell

Representation Summary:

I object to the development of site BX116 Spindlewood Drive because the infrastructure is inadequate, access roads are too narrow to accommodate increased traffic, no pavements for pedestrians heading in a southerly direction which is dangerous for children and families. Little common is already congested with inadequate parking, a primary school at full capacity, and Dr's surgery over subscribed. Rother should be concentrating on brownfield sites instead of green and NBAR is a far better site for consideration which will have the infrastructure in place.

Full text:

I object to the development of site BX116 Spindlewood Drive because the infrastructure is inadequate, access roads are too narrow to accommodate increased traffic, no pavements for pedestrians heading in a southerly direction which is dangerous for children and families. Little common is already congested with inadequate parking, a primary school at full capacity, and Dr's surgery over subscribed. Rother should be concentrating on brownfield sites instead of green and NBAR is a far better site for consideration which will have the infrastructure in place.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22456

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Leonora Blackmore

Representation Summary:

I do not agree with the preferred sites and in particular BX116.

This site is unnecessary and any further development around Little Common is excessive bearing in mind Barnhorn Green which is already agreed. Even that development adds over 300 new homes where infrastructure is already at breaking point. It is shameful that it is being allowed to proceed without the inclusion of additional facilities that were originally intended. It demonstrates yet again that initial "planning" can rarely be trusted and the impact of developments give no regard to the existing community and environmental issues.

BX116 should be permanently cancelled.

Full text:


I do not agree with the preferred sites that have been proposed, and in particular disagree with BX116.

This site is totally unnecessary and any further development around Little Common (other than a few small windfall sites) is excessive bearing in mind the Barnhorn Green development which is already agreed. Even that development will alone add over 300 new homes to an area whose infrastructure is already at breaking point. It is shameful that it is being allowed to proceed without the inclusion of additional facilities that were originally intended. . It demonstrates yet again that initial "planning" can rarely be trusted and the impact of such developments give no regard to the existing community and environmental issues.

BX116 should be permanently cancelled.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22459

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Mr John Blackmore

Representation Summary:

I do NOT agree with preferred sites, especially BX116.

BX116 would put intolerablestrain on the A259 and Little Common, particularly in view of the Barnhorn Green development.

Access via Meads Road/Spindlewood Drive is wrong as roads are suitable for increased traffic.

There are better alternatives.

BX124 is a brownfield site which should be given preference, and would give better access to local infrastructure. Extension by BX125 (Option 3) would be sensible.

BX101 is brownfield site that should be given preference over BX116. Whilst access is better, it would still present problems to the A259 and other roads south of this.

Full text:


I do NOT agree with the preferred sites that have been proposed, especially BX116.

BX116 would put intolerable additional strain on the A259 and on Little Common as a whole, particularly in view of the Barnhorn Green development that is already proceeding.

Any access via Meads Road or Spindlewood Drive is wrong as neither road is suitable for the increased traffic that would apply.

There are better alternatives which would benefit new and existing residents to a far greater extent.

BX124 is a brownfield site which should always be given preference, and would give much better access to the existing local infrastructure with none of the disruption. Extension by BX125 and implementation of Option 3 would be much more sensible.

BX101 is another brownfield site that should be given preference over BX116. Whilst access is better, it would still present problems to the A259 and to other roads to the south of this.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22460

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Mike Pollard

Representation Summary:

I believe the Spindlewood Drive development is inappropriate due to lack of infrastructure to support the development. As the adjacent roads are insufficient to deal with the anticipated volumes of traffic both at construction and at built stages.

Therefore a far better site such as BX124 option 3 would be more suitable with excellent infrastructure and little environmental impact.

Full text:

I believe the Spindlewood Drive development is inappropriate due to lack of infrastructure to support the development. As the adjacent roads are insufficient to deal with the anticipated volumes of traffic both at construction and at built stages.

Therefore a far better site such as BX124 option 3 would be more suitable with excellent infrastructure and little environmental impact.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22527

Received: 18/02/2017

Respondent: Bexhill Wheelers

Representation Summary:

Agree: Agree: Vital that Walking and Cycle Links are integrated with other Rights of Way, Shared Space paths, Quite Roads with 20mph limits and are of common high quality standards, clearly signed that connect with other adjoining developments and projects. That Bus infrastructure is provided with routes negotiated and agreed prior to construction to ensure access to work and homes by public transport is available. Provision made to ensure vehicles park or lay-by in designated places by physical barriers or engineering at turning radius. Roads built to ESCC standards or higher and adopted.

Full text:

Agree: Agree: Vital that Walking and Cycle Links are integrated with other Rights of Way, Shared Space paths, Quite Roads with 20mph limits and are of common high quality standards, clearly signed that connect with other adjoining developments and projects. That Bus infrastructure is provided with routes negotiated and agreed prior to construction to ensure access to work and homes by public transport is available. Provision made to ensure vehicles park or lay-by in designated places by physical barriers or engineering at turning radius. Roads built to ESCC standards or higher and adopted.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22605

Received: 19/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Drusilla Tramaseur

Representation Summary:

Site BEX5 in Knole Road should be re-allocated for leisure use. It is the last open space to the east of Bexhill town centre and within 20 minutes' walk for thousands of residents and visitors. It is a greeenfield site having been a park or sports facility and its historic setting should be preserved. One report states that 39 retirement flats are proposed to be allocated and another states 41. Both figures represent allocations which could be fulfilled elsewhere as small 'windfall' sites become available because there is stated to be a small surplus.

Full text:

Site BEX5 in Knole Road, Bexhill should be re-allocated for leisure use. It is the last open space to the east of Bexhill town centre and is a greenfield site having been a park or sports facility. It is opposite listed buildings on the seafront and the historic setting should be preserved. One report states that 39 retirement flats could be accommodated on the site, another states that the figure is 41. Both figures represent allocations for housing which could be fulfilled elsewhere as small 'windfall' sites become available, given the stated small surplus of allocated sites.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22705

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Cantelupe Community Association

Representation Summary:

The Association does NOT agree site #4) BX5: Knole Road should be included as a 'preferred' site suitable for housing development. In registering it as an Asset of Community Value, the council formally recognized its value in furthering the social wellbeing and interests of the local community. Furthermore, no assessment has been undertaken to show the whole space is surplus to requirements. Although some space would remain, about half of the existing would be lost and views to the remainder would be blocked by new buildings. Therefore any development would run contrary to paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

Full text:

The Association does NOT agree site #4) BX5: Knole Road should be included as a 'preferred' site suitable for housing development. In registering it as an Asset of Community Value, the council formally recognized its value in furthering the social wellbeing and interests of the local community. Furthermore, no assessment has been undertaken to show the whole space is surplus to requirements. Although some space would remain, about half of the existing would be lost and views to the remainder would be blocked by new buildings. Therefore any development would run contrary to paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22706

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Graham Edenborough

Representation Summary:

I believe the inclusion of Northeye for residential building land to be a bad error of judgement owing to the sensitivity of the surrounding area and the likely adverse effect on the area west of Bexhill, its access and existing residential status.
Please see my comments under paragraph 37 for further details.

Full text:

I believe the inclusion of Northeye for residential building land to be a bad error of judgement owing to the sensitivity of the surrounding area and the likely adverse effect on the area west of Bexhill, its access and existing residential status.
Please see my comments under paragraph 37 for further details.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22716

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Brenda Simpson

Representation Summary:

I do not agree that BEX5 Knole Road Bexhill should be included as a 'preferred' site for housing development at all and should be removed as such. Over the last 14yrs = 3 failed attempts at development = planning appeals and High Court cases = very costly for RDC's Council Tax payers.

Full text:

I do not agree that BEX5 Knole Road Bexhill should be included as a 'preferred' site for housing development at all and should be removed as such. Over the last 14yrs = 3 failed attempts at development = planning appeals and High Court cases = very costly for RDC's Council Tax payers.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22757

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Vass

Representation Summary:

I totally disagree with BEX9.

Completion of the North Bexhill Access Road has already increased traffic along the A259 through Little Common. There are traffic queues at many times of the day causing a significant increase in air pollution. Any new developments would have a massive effect in worsening this pollution.

The proposed exit via Spindlewood Drive is onto a very narrow road in either direction. In addition Maple Walk is an unadopted road and totally unsuitable for any increase in traffic flows.

Sites best suited to development would be BX124 and BX101.

Full text:

I totally disagree with the preferred development site BEX9: land off Spindlewood Drive.

Completion of the North Bexhill Access Road has already increased traffic along the A259 from its junction at the traffic lights in Bexhill westwards through Little Common. There are traffic queues at many times of the day now at the Little
Common roundabout causing a significant increase in air pollution. Any new developments in the Little Common Area would have a massive effect in worsening this pollution.

The proposed exit from this site via Spindlewood Drive is onto a very narrow road in either direction - via Meads Road to Little Common or via Maple Walk southwards. In addition Maple Walk is an unadopted road and totally unsuitable for any increase in traffic flows. Also the frontagers of Maple Walk (and other roads in this locality) are responsible for the maintenance of their unadopted roads. Would the Rother District Council be prepared to meet the bill of more frequent repairs due to their decision to allow a very significant rise of road use and construction traffic?
I suggest that the sites best suited to development would be BX124: North Bexhill and BX101; Northeye.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22758

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Christina Thirkell

Representation Summary:

I do not agree with BX116.

Spindlewood is totally unacceptable because the infrastructure will not be able to cope. Already the bottom of the field that backs onto Maple Walk is very boggy, as happens every year and we've had hardly any rain yet and when we do it floods!
It would be a good idea for someone to inspect it before we have some rain.

Site BX124 is a much preferred option because the infrastructure will be far better. There would be less disruption to surrounding houses and less disruption to surrounding roads.

Full text:

I definitely do not agree with the preferred site BX116.

Spindlewood is totally unacceptable because the infrastructure will not be able to cope. Already the bottom of the field that backs onto Maple Walk is very boggy, as happens every year and we've had hardly any rain yet and when we do it floods!
It would be a good idea for someone to inspect it before we have some rain.

Site ref BX124 - New N BAR link road is a much preferred option because the
infrastructure will be far better due to the new road being built. There would be less
disruption to surrounding houses and less disruption to surrounding roads.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22792

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Shelley Packman

Representation Summary:

BX116-
a)The area is under sea level, already substantial flooding risk.
b)The proposal would bring severe congestion, noise, environmental damage, air pollution. Meads Road is already single file for the majority of its length. Numerous wildlife species would lose their habitat.
c)The essence and heart of the area would be stripped of its charm.

A far better solution would be to further develop BX124, increasing the numbers from the proposed 450. There are already train stations, good road links, job prospects, schools, doctor's surgeries in situ. It may also be possible any affordable housing plans to be located at BX101.

Full text:

I am shocked to think that consideration is being made with regard to the BEX09/BX116 Spindlewood Drive development proposal due to the following reasons
a) The area is under sea level which would heighten an already substantial flooding risk.
b) Rother council has a duty of care, not only to its residents who would bear the brunt to the chaos such a whimsical proposal would bring in terms of the severe added congestion - vehicles, noise, damage to the environment, air pollution which as you are aware has substantial links to dementia. Meads Road leading into Maple Walk is already single file for the majority of its length. The Council cannot turn a blind eye by so drastically countering the amount of traffic which would ensue. The numerous species of wildlife including Tawny Owls, Nightingales and Great Crested Newt would lose their habitat which would be a devastating loss for them plus numerous nature lovers who love the idyllic area.
c) The essence and heart of the local area would be stripped of its charm which has brought people to the area for decades.

A far better solution would be to further develop Site BX124 to increase the housing numbers from the proposed 450, to incorporate more houses. There are already train stations, good road links, job prospects, schools, doctor's surgeries in situ. It may also be possible any affordable housing plans to be located at Northeye Site BX101.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22795

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Tom Brampton

Representation Summary:

Little Common does not have the infrastructure and roads to support additional housing.

More practical sites should include site BX124 near the Bexhill access road and site BX101 at Northeye which has better access and further houses could be built.

Site BX116 has poor access and the roads are not built to accept the increase in traffic. You can only get a car along Meads Avenue, it would not support larger vehicles.

Full text:

Little Common does not have the infrastructure and roads to support additional housing.

More practical sites should include site BX124 near the Bexhill access road and site BX101 at Northeye which has better access and further houses could be built.

Site BX116 has poor access and the roads are not built to accept the increase in traffic. You can only get a car along Meads Avenue, it would not support larger vehicles.

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22801

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs M Cantrell

Representation Summary:

I do not agree with housing development on 3 sites:
BX4
BX30
BX120

Full text:

I do not agree with housing development on 3 sites:
BX4
BX30
BX120

Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22817

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Johnston

Representation Summary:

The infrastructure is totally unsuitable: schools, doctors, service, roads, parking is totally inadequate for further development.

Development of site BX116 would cause even greater traffic problems than at their present dangerous level. Vans and lorries for a glazing company and a supermarket on either corner of Meads Road destroy the sight-line completely and any additional traffic would increase danger for children and elderly alike.
Maple Walk (unadopted) would become a rat run. Our green belt should be sacrosanct. I would suggest BX124 would be a far more suitable offering much safer access and ingress.

Full text:

It would be wrong to develop site BX116, Land to the north of Spindlewood Drive and Maple Walk. A huge mistake.
The infrastructure is totally unsuitable: schools, doctors, service, roads, parking is totally inadequate for further development.
Development of site BX116 would cause even greater traffic problems than at their present dangerous level. Vans and lorries for a glazing company and a supermarket on either corner of Meads Road destroy the sight-line completely and any additional traffic would increase danger for children and elderly alike.
Maple Walk (unadopted) would become a rat run. Our green belt should be sacrosanct. I would suggest BX124 would be a far more suitable offering much safer access and ingress.