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

The Spindlewood site is extremely detrimental in a variety of ways to all the current residents of Cooden, Cooden Beach, Little Common and all the adjacent neighbourhoods. Alternative sites such as Site BX124 (Option l) the new North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR) where 450 houses are proposed should be actioned first.
This option already has a new road infrastructure that can cope with associated increases in road traffic. It has existing facilities to cope with increased general social needs e.g. shops, doctors surgeries etc.
This would eliminate the need to force Cooden and other Little Common communities to cope with reduced and unacceptable standards of community services, living and environment standards. Instead Option 1 (450 house) should be immediately combined with and j implemented with Option 2 (65 extra houses) and Option (3) (215 house). The resulting immediate increase of 730 houses would make any development in the Spindlewood area I completely unnecessary.
Already the road system in Little Common is inadequate with regular traffic queues and congestion in and around the village, on the A259, along the I Barnhorn Road, Meads Road, Cooden Beach Road and along Birkdale, - all of which regularly cause gridlocks in the area.

PREFERRED SITE:

I understand that the Rural District Council needs to reach core targets and is
considering Spindlewood Drive BX116 as a preferred development site for 160
properties. I feel this site to be totally inappropriate for reasons given below and
consider that an alternative preferred site would be that of BX124 on the new
North Bexhill Access Road plus it would be possible to increase the number of
houses currently proposed on this site and other possible sites bordering the NBAR.
Residents sited in these positions would enjoy excellent benefits with access to far
superior facilities of shops, doctors' surgeries, schools, chemists, business centres,
jobs etc. at Ravenside, Bexhill town , Hastings, St. Leonards and Enterprise Way.
Northeye BX101 is not considered a suitable site because of its negative impact on
the infrastructure of Little Common.

REASONS TO CONSIDER BX124 AS A PREFERRED SITE OVER
SPINDLEWOOD DRIVE DEVELOPMENT.

Insufficient Infrastructure:

The approved development of Barnhorn Green of 342 houses will, in itself, push
Little Common's existing infrastructure to the limit and beyond and any additional
housing will only add to this crisis point. The fact that 30% of all new development
needs to be affordable accommodation means that the demographics will include a
much younger element who will need jobs and their children will need schools.
There simply are not enough adequate roads, local schools, doctors' surgeries,
convenient parking spaces etc. to cope with the extra influx of residents in the Little
Common area. Already, the proposed 'school' and 'doctors' surgery' on the
Barnhorn site plans have been replaced with residential properties and the present
Little Common Primary School is already over-subscribed and unable to cope with
an increase in their numbers. There are no local Secondary Schools. It has been
noted that the plots tagged as 'commercial' at Barnhorn have been reduced and
turned into land for flats and houses which means the number of residents will be
further increased on that site.

Air Pollution:

It is noted that existing air pollution levels around Little Common are close to breaching safe levels and with the additional traffic which is forecast once Barnhorn Green construction starts, this will result in unacceptable levels of pollution and be a danger to local residents i.e. dementia and lung disease. Current air pollution levels along Barnhorn Road should be monitored as a priority measure.

Unsuitable access:

The Spindlewood Drive site access via narrow roads, i.e. Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Drive, is totally unsuitable and not in line with the Local Plan Core Strategy paper September 2014, P55, Para 8. 56 which states 'Development to the West of Little Common, both north and south of Barnhorn Road (A259) will be
considered. Access would need to be created directly off the A259/supplemented
by existing estate roads!' The increased traffic along Meads Road into Cooden Sea
Road will result in serious congestion along these roads flowing into Little Common
roundabout via dangerous junctions. I feel that the RDC do not possess up-to-date
knowledge of the long traffic queues forming on the A259 leading into and out of
this roundabout at this present time, especially as work has started on the new
Barnhorn estate. There is also an underestimation of the amount of traffic coming
into this area from Peartree Lane/ Chestnut Walk and Cooden Sea Road. A by-pass
of Little Common urgently needs construction joining the A259 to Ninfield Road
joining up with the new North Bexhill Access Road.

Risk of a "Rat Run' through Maple Walk and Maple Ave to Cooden Sea Road:

Looking at the proposed plan, it seems inevitable that drivers, finding the traffic
congested through the small inadequate access route, will find a "'rat run' to Cooden
Sea Road through Maple Walk and Maple Avenue which are unsuitable and
dangerous for heavy traffic. Both these roads are 'unaudited' which means" that "the
Council do not hold themselves responsible for gritting or repairs to the road surface
and with the increased traffic this will result "in undue wear and tear; "therefore
higher costs for maintenance will need to be paid by the residents. Maple Walk is
already a dangerous lane to traverse as it is badly lit and there are no pavements in
many parts. The council should be made aware that there is already a public safety
issue here.

Flood Analysis:

A full flood analysis needs to be made as apparently the field in question is
adjoining flood pollution and is very wet. Indeed, wetlands need to be protected.
Plant and wildlife, such as the generations of badgers that have lived in this field
will find their food supply cut off and roam further afield into people's gardens.

Jewel in the Crown:

There is no need to infiltrate on an already built-up area. The character of Little
Common village and Cooden attracted my husband and me to move to Maple
Avenue in Spring of last year. We wanted to enjoy and share in the unique'
ambience of this very special corner of Sussex offering a quiet escape from the
claustrophobic "Urban Sprawl' of many towns which have been over-developed by
the planners and land owners. We need to protect this precious "jewel in the
crown" and preserve its special identity for future generations.

We consider the Spindlewood Drive site to be an inappropriate choice for the following reasons.

Insufficient infrastructure: Spindlewood Drive and the surrounding Little Common area are ill-equipped to take on more residential development. There is only one junior school serving Little Common and this has already been extended as far as possible, currently serving 600+ pupils. Parking at the beginning and end of the school day already causes massive disruption and is the subject of on-going, sometimes volatile, discussions between residents, the police and the school. The same is true of the G. P. surgery - lack of parking and up to capacity regarding patients.

A259 - congestion: The A259 is already over-worked at this geographical point. The roundabout at Little Common has to cope with queues from Cooden Sea Road, Peartree Lane and Chestnut Walk. Meads Road, which feeds in to Cooden Sea Road, is already considered a dangerous junction. Increased traffic at this point would undoubtedly lead to a rise in accident potential and further congestion. Inevitably un-adopted roads would also experience greater traffic use and it's highly likely that these roads would become 'rat runs'. This would greatly upset existing residents.

Better Sites for Housing.

The Rural District Council has on many occasions made it clear that the new Link Road - NBAR - was constructed in part because of the additional benefit, for both industrial buildings and also housing.
The land in question must be better suited for additional units than Spindlewood. It can also provide the infrastructure all as per Note 4 of Question 4.
Use of this land will easily replace the Spindlewood Land and more.

Research by Rother District Council.

The Council's Planning Dept. could well benefit from the experience of other towns who have carried out schemes for housing but failed to provide the infrastructure first. I refer to Holmes Chapel in Cheshire. My daughter lived in this town and tells me that because they do not have adequate Surgeries in an emergency a patient has to wait in a queue for the only ten slots that day. This is just one of their problems I expect.

In the case of the approval already given for land on the north side of Barnhorn Road the original scheme did I understand include some infrastructure but not included in the final approval.

I do not agree with the requirement. The Spindlewood Drive development proposal
(BEX9/BX116) is unsuitable on the grounds of lack of suitable infrastructure around the Little Common area which also seems to apply to BX101 (Northeye).

Little Common's infrastructure cannot cope with additional numbers of properties
and people.

We are also very concerned about the proposed huge increase in numbers of patients registering with local GP surgeries, dentists, pharmacists and other associated health professionals as well as the needs of school children and a lack of parking which needs attention, now. We do not want an increase in the risk of flooding because of concrete affecting drainage.

It is totally unsuitable site access via narrow roads (Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Drive) and Meads Road may even be hazardous to road and pedestrian users especially for very heavy vehicles.

There would be serious consequences for all residents using Meads Road with increased levels of noise and air pollution as well as severe congestion as traffic attempts to join the already busy Cooden Sea Road.

More Suitable Sites

The most suitable would be off the North Bexhill Access Road (NEAR BEX3) site ref. BX124

PREFERRED SITE:

I understand that the Rural District Council needs to reach core targets and is
considering Spindlewood Drive BX116 as a preferred development site for 160
properties. I feel this site to be totally inappropriate for reasons given below and
consider that an alternative preferred site would be that of BX124 on the new
North Bexhill Access Road plus it would be possible to increase the number of
houses currently proposed on this site and other possible sites bordering the NBAR.
Residents sited in these positions would enjoy excellent benefits with access to far
superior facilities of shops, doctors' surgeries, schools, chemists, business centres,
jobs etc. at Ravenside, Bexhill town , Hastings, St. Leonards and Enterprise Way.
Northeye BX101 is not considered a suitable site because of its negative impact on
the infrastructure of Little Common.

REASONS TO CONSIDER BX124 AS A PREFERRED SITE OVER
SPINDLEWOOD DRIVE DEVELOPMENT.

Insufficient Infrastructure:

The approved development of Barnhorn Green of 342 houses will, in itself, push
Little Common's existing infrastructure to the limit and beyond and any additional
housing will only add to this crisis point. The fact that 30% of all new development
needs to be affordable accommodation means that the demographics will include a
much younger element who will need jobs and their children will need schools.
There simply are not enough adequate roads, local schools, doctors' surgeries,
convenient parking spaces etc. to cope with the extra influx of residents in the Little
Common area. Already, the proposed 'school' and 'doctors' surgery' on the
Barnhorn site plans have been replaced with residential properties and the present
Little Common Primary School is already over-subscribed and unable to cope with
an increase in their numbers. There are no local Secondary Schools. It has been
noted that the plots tagged as 'commercial' at Barnhorn have been reduced and
turned into land for flats and houses which means the number of residents will be
further increased on that site.

Air Pollution:

It is noted that existing air pollution levels around Little Common are close to breaching safe levels and with the additional traffic which is forecast once Barnhorn Green construction starts, this will result in unacceptable levels of pollution and be a danger to local residents i.e. dementia and lung disease. Current air pollution levels along Barnhorn Road should be monitored as a priority measure.

Unsuitable access:

The Spindlewood Drive site access via narrow roads, i.e. Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Drive, is totally unsuitable and not in line with the Local Plan Core Strategy paper September 2014, P55, Para 8. 56 which states 'Development to the West of Little Common, both north and south of Barnhorn Road (A259) will be
considered. Access would need to be created directly off the A259/supplemented
by existing estate roads!' The increased traffic along Meads Road into Cooden Sea
Road will result in serious congestion along these roads flowing into Little Common
roundabout via dangerous junctions. I feel that the RDC do not possess up-to-date
knowledge of the long traffic queues forming on the A259 leading into and out of
this roundabout at this present time, especially as work has started on the new
Barnhorn estate. There is also an underestimation of the amount of traffic coming
into this area from Peartree Lane/ Chestnut Walk and Cooden Sea Road. A by-pass
of Little Common urgently needs construction joining the A259 to Ninfield Road
joining up with the new North Bexhill Access Road.

Risk of a "Rat Run' through Maple Walk and Maple Ave to Cooden Sea Road:

Looking at the proposed plan, it seems inevitable that drivers, finding the traffic
congested through the small inadequate access route, will find a "'rat run' to Cooden
Sea Road through Maple Walk and Maple Avenue which are unsuitable and
dangerous for heavy traffic. Both these roads are 'unaudited' which means" that "the
Council do not hold themselves responsible for gritting or repairs to the road surface
and with the increased traffic this will result "in undue wear and tear; "therefore
higher costs for maintenance will need to be paid by the residents. Maple Walk is
already a dangerous lane to traverse as it is badly lit and there are no pavements in
many parts. The council should be made aware that there is already a public safety
issue here.

Flood Analysis:

A full flood analysis needs to be made as apparently the field in question is
adjoining flood pollution and is very wet. Indeed, wetlands need to be protected.
Plant and wildlife, such as the generations of badgers that have lived in this field
will find their food supply cut off and roam further afield into people's gardens.

Jewel in the Crown:

There is no need to infiltrate on an already built-up area. The character of Little
Common village and Cooden attracted my husband and me to move to Maple
Avenue in Spring of last year. We wanted to enjoy and share in the unique'
ambience of this very special corner of Sussex offering a quiet escape from the
claustrophobic "Urban Sprawl' of many towns which have been over-developed by
the planners and land owners. We need to protect this precious "jewel in the
crown" and preserve its special identity for future generations.

The Spindlewood site is extremely detrimental in a variety of ways to all the current
residents of Cooden, Cooden Beach, Little Common and all the adjacent neighbourhoods. Alternative sites such as Site BX124 (Option 1) the new North BexhiII Access Road (NBAR) where 450 houses are proposed should be actioned first. This option already has a new road infrastructure that can cope with associated increases in road traffic. It has existing facilities to cope with increased general social needs e.g. shops, doctors surgeries etc. This would eliminate the need to force Cooden and other Little Common communities to cope with reduced and unacceptable standards of community services, living and environment standards. Instead Option 1 (450 houses) should be immediately combined with and implemented with Option 2 (65 extra houses) and Option (3) (215 houses). The resulting immediate increase of 730 houses would make any development in the SpindIewood area completely unnecessary. Already the road system in Little Common us inadequate with regular traffic queues and congestion in and the around the village, on the A259, along the Barnhorn Road, Meads Road, Cooden Beach Road and along Birkdale, - all of which regularly cause gridlocks in the area.

I do not agree with this requirement.

The proposed Spindlewood development (BEX9/BX116) is not suitable due to the lack of infrastructure.

The infrastructure is already fully stretched in Little Common and additional housing, people and cars will not be acceptable.

The local resources for doctors, dentists, pharmacies are all overstretched along with a general lack of car parking, and the congested potholed roads.

Maple Walk and Meads Road are effectively single lane roads, especially with the parked vehicles in the latter. Cooden Sea Road is not maintained as it is, without additional traffic queuing for the Little Common roundabout.

Most of all we paid a premium to live in a quiet, low density area and not as it is proposed to overdevelop it, causing extra noise, pollution and a greater risk of flooding and crime.

A more suitable site would be the North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR BEX3) site ref BX124.

The Spindlewood Drive site is unsuitable for development because:

* The local roads are unsuitable for any extra traffic, including the A259.

* Using an access road into the site from Spindlewood Drive would be impractical as the roads adjoining are narrow. Extra cars would cause traffic congestion, noise and increased pollution levels, especially in Meads Road. "Rat-runs" would be established in Maple Walk and Clavering Walk. These roads would then become dangerous for pedestrians.

* The facilities and support services at Little Common are just adequate for the existing residents, but would not cope with a further increase in population e.g. primary school and GPs practice full to capacity already.

* The area is currently quiet, peaceful. Semi-rural and very pleasant. The proposed development would cause a very detrimental change in demographics and greatly reduce the quality of life for existing residents, many of whom have moved into the area from other more urbanised, stressful places to live, to get away from these stresses.

* A previous survey found that the Spindlewood site was unsuitable for housing due to it being prone to flooding.

* Alternative sites - BX124 and BX101 - where the infrastructure and ease of access to good facilities would be better for residents.

Of all the sites identified in the DaSA consultation process for Bexhill (BEX1 - BEX10), there is one outstanding location suitable and ideal for large site development - site BEX124 - the North Bexhill Access Road (N BAR).

This site offers a golden opportunity for RDC to create a self-contained environment for the residents without affecting existing built up areas of Bexhill. Consequently, the site achieves the rare feat of meeting everyone's objectives - RDC meet their target of housing needs, the residents have a completely new and non-polluting environment with excellent access to and opportunities of local employment (via BEX1) and existing areas of Bexhill (especially Little Common) are not overburdened with demands on their limited infrastructure.

The current proposal of Option 1 for 450 houses on BX124 should therefore be seen to be too tentative and the site should be expanded to encompass at least 550-600 houses as per Option 3.

The local infrastructure around BX124 is more than adequate to accommodate this additional development. Indeed the location of the site is ideal for all aspects of required infrastructure.

1. local jobs (BEX1), St Leonards, Bexhill and Hastings all readily accessible via Coombe Valley Way or NBAR itself
2. Schools - new school being built at NE Bexhill and others nearby accessible via Enterprise Way
3. GP surgeries - at Bexhill old town and Sidley
4. Trains - at Bexhill and Hastings Warrior Square
5. Shopping - at Ravenside, St Leonards, Bexhill and Hastings all accessible without needing to use the A259.

The site would be further enhanced for future development beyond 2028 if a Little Common bypass were to be provided linking the end of NEAR at the A269 with the A259 at Hooe (by The Lamb Inn). Such a road would bring huge benefits to all of Bexhill creating a "golden triangle" of Coombe Valley Way, the A259 and the Little Common Bypass. Local commerce would benefit with improved productivity and the over used A259 through Little Common would see a marked reduction in traffic flows bringing much needed relief to the residents living along that road in terms of reduced noise and air pollution levels.

There would be major benefits to RDC as well of course, with potential for significant further development along the by-pass itself as well as possible further development along the NBAR. This would almost certainly help RDC to meet any future residential and commercial targets beyond 2028.

The complete reverse to these arguments applies to developments proposed around Little Common.
Here the local infrastructure is already overburdened and stretched to the limit. The agreed Barnhorn Green development and other smaller developments planned and proposed along Barnhorn Road and Cooden Sea Road are likely to result in 400 new properties. The GP surgery is already close to capacity and is unlikely to be able to cope with 800+ residents. The A259 is also close to capacity (900 vehicles per hour for most of the working day) and will be badly affected by the traffic lights and
zebra crossing to be installed shortly along Barnhorn Road. Little Common school is also at capacity.
There are no job prospects in the Little Common area nor any secondary schools. All major shopping centres are situated at some distance from Little Common. Consequently all new residents around Little Common will be forced to use their cars every day, for many at least twice a day to reach these essential facilities adding yet more burden on the A259 and increases in noise and air pollution. In
short, a disaster for the new residents and for Little Common as a whole.

Conclusion

1. Site BX124 is the outstanding candidate for large scale development and proposed number there should be increased to 555-600 as per Option 3.
2. No further development should be contemplated around Little Common due to inadequate infrastructure and serious harm to the environment. This especially applies to Spindlewood Drive (BX116) due the size of development proposed there.
3. Site BX101 (Northeye) would be best developed to provide local job opportunities around Little Common and without serious impact to the A259 and local infrastructure (Option 1).

I strongly disagree with any proposal to develop site BX116, land to the north of Spindlewood Drive/Maple Walk.

The proposed access route is totally inappropriate with the roads unable to accept additional traffic. As a resident of Maple Walk I am very concerned that traffic from the BX116 site would use Maple Walk as alternative access/egress. As you know, the road is unadopted and maintained by residents. It is narrow, poorly lit and has not pavements. The road is regularly used by parents walking children to Little Common School and I see a real threat to public safety.

The alternative of BX124 would have far less environmental impact and benefits from a better infrastructure.

The proposed development is not a suitable site for this density of housing. Brownfield sites should always be given preference, and the affordable housing would be better served by the North Bexhill Access road (NBAR) development. The amount of extra traffic with this sort of density of housing will cause serious problems with noise, air pollution and traffic congestion as parking is already a problem in the area.

I strongly disagree with the Spindlewood Drive (BEX9-site ref BX116) development of 160 properties because

(i) The existing infrastructure (i.e. A259 and the feeder/access roads to BX116, schools and GP surgery) are running now at very full capacity and more housing on Spindlewood Drive site and any adjoining green fields t BX116 will put unbearable and unreasonable loads and stress on these existing facilities and therefore disadvantage all residents in this area of Little Common, particularly those living near BX116 i.e. Meads Road, Maple walk, Maple Avenue, Clavering Walk, Cooden Sea road and of course Spindlewood Drive. BX116 will significantly increase traffic (private and commercial) flows causing unreasonable noise and vibration, increased air pollution disadvantaging residents who moved to this area to enjoy the calm and tranquillity and clean air.

(ii) As the access route to BX116 is via Cooden Sea Road, via Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive, I can foresee that due to increased traffic flows and congestion, drivers will use Maple Walk, Maple Avenue and Clavering Walk as "rat-runs" causing other residents massive inconvenience and stress.

(iii) My wife and I retired to this area (to get away from high density, noisy and polluted urbanised live we lived in before) and any high density development in BX116 and adjoining fields will significantly undermine our quality of life and affect our health and wellbeing.

(iv) My preferred sits for development should be the NBAR site (BX124) and/or the Northeye site BX101.

The Spindlewood site is extremely detrimental in a variety of ways to all the current
residents of Cooden, Cooden Beach, Little Common and all the adjacent neighbourhoods. Alternative sites such as Site BX124 (Option 1) the new North BexhiII Access Road (NBAR) where 450 houses are proposed should be actioned first. This option already has a new road infrastructure that can cope with associated increases in road traffic. It has existing facilities to cope with increased general social needs e.g. shops, doctors surgeries etc. This would eliminate the need to force Cooden and other Little Common communities to cope with reduced and unacceptable standards of community services, living and environment standards. Instead Option 1 (450 houses) should be immediately combined with and implemented with Option 2 (65 extra houses) and Option (3) (215 houses). The resulting immediate increase of 730 houses would make any development in the SpindIewood area completely unnecessary. Already the road system in Little Common us inadequate with regular traffic queues and congestion in and the around the village, on the A259, along the Barnhorn Road, Meads Road, Cooden Beach Road and along Birkdale, - all of which regularly cause gridlocks in the area.

The Spindlewood site is extremely detrimental in a variety of ways to all the current
residents of Cooden, Cooden Beach, Little Common and all the adjacent neighbourhoods. Alternative sites such as Site BX124 (Option 1) the new North BexhiII Access Road (NBAR) where 450 houses are proposed should be actioned first. This option already has a new road infrastructure that can cope with associated increases in road traffic. It has existing facilities to cope with increased general social needs e.g. shops, doctors surgeries etc. This would eliminate the need to force Cooden and other Little Common communities to cope with reduced and unacceptable standards of community services, living and environment standards. Instead Option 1 (450 houses) should be immediately combined with and implemented with Option 2 (65 extra houses) and Option (3) (215 houses). The resulting immediate increase of 730 houses would make any development in the SpindIewood area completely unnecessary. Already the road system in Little Common us inadequate with regular traffic queues and congestion in and the around the village, on the A259, along the Barnhorn Road, Meads Road, Cooden Beach Road and along Birkdale, - all of which regularly cause gridlocks in the area.

I do not agree with the preferred sites for housing development at Bexhill. I would prefer you not to build on Proposed Development Site/policy no. BEX9 - Site Ref BX116 as I feel that it is totally inappropriate, it is adjacent to the development boundary of Bexhill, the boundary has been extended far enough all ready, also it is a Green Field Site and there are far more appropriate Brown Field Site more readily available! It would be more befitting to build on Brown Field Sites, I much prefer proposed development site/policy No BEX3 (options 2 & 3) site Ref BX124 which is a Brown Field Site, NBAR would be a much more suitable site for residents due to the availability of its Iocal infrastructure, GP's, Schools, shops etc as well as the fact that they can access Bexhill, St. Leonard's and Hastings without having to use the A259 which is already grossly congested much of the time. Another more suitable site would be 8X101 Northeye, another Brown Field Site.

BEX9 Spindlewood Drive is not a suitable site for numerous reasons. It does not have the appropriate infrastructure, it struggles with the present amount of residents. The approved development of 342 houses at Barnhorn Green will break the back of Little Commons existing infrastructure without any more being added.

Spindlewood Drive, Meads Road, Maple Walk and surrounding un-adopted roads are
narrow and are not suitable for very heavy vehicle's, some of these could become rat runs. The area already has a huge amount of car movements every day without an added extra vehicle movement of around 800. This will result in congestion along
Meads Road, along Cooden Sea Road onto Little Common Roundabout and the A259
which is already congested much of the time, especially rush hours morning and
evening. This win also result in Little Common roundabout becoming gridlocked more often than not and impacting on all the surrounding roads, bearing in mind that those from the extra houses at Barnhorn Green will also add to the congestion already being experienced on the A259. I believe that the existing air pollution levels in the area around Little Common and the A259 are getting close to breaching safe levels and with the additional traffic flows and congestion will tip them over the permitted levels, which is grave concern for all residents!

The area surrounding Little Common and Cooden Sea Road is peaceful, tranquil and
has an abundance of protected wild life. When I moved here I paid a premium for my property because of the surrounding environment and have paid more than the local average house costs and also pay a high Council Tax even though we live on an un-made road with no lighting, should the proposed development BEX9 go ahead I would expect a reduction on the rateable value of the properties as you will be spoiling the environment in the area.

The proposed development off Spindlewood Drive BEX9 as well as BEX7 and BEX6 are un-necessary and unsuitable and would be destructive and harmful to Little Common and the area as a whole.

I feel that Spindlewood Drive, site Ref BX116 (Policy no, BEX9) should be excluded
from the second DaSA consultation process.

I do not agree with the preferred sites for housing development in Bexhill. I would very much prefer that you do not build on Proposed development site/policy no. BEX9 - Site Ref BX116.

This is a GREEN FIELD SITE and there are other preferred Brown Field Sites around like BX124 (NBAR) options 2 and 3 which could also include the affordable housing being proposed for BEX9 Spindlewood. Site BX101 at Northeye is another more acceptable site where a possible 115 houses are proposed, not currently included in RDC's total of 1044, both of these are much more suitable for development and have better infrastructures,
better road networks and are less gridlocked.

The roads in the vicinity of Spindlewood Drive are mostly un-adopted, inferior, unsuitable for heavy vehicles and already over subscribed for vehicle movement.

Any development on the fields adjacent to Spindlewood Drive, Hazelwood Close, Old Harrier Close and Clavering Walk will stretch the infrastructure beyond repair and ruin the substance of the whole area. It will have a detrimental impact on all those living in the surrounding area. It will have a huge impact on the quality of life the residents have at present and also diminish the standing of the desirable area in which people chose to pay more for an outstanding area to live their lives.

There will be increased levels of noise, air pollution and drastic congestion on Cooden Sea Road, Little Common Roundabout and the A259 in general. The impact on people's lives in the vicinity and on the environment is unacceptable. Also there is an abundant of wildlife that will be unduly affected and immeasurable damage will be done to the area as a whole!

Planning applications on this site have been refused in the past both at local level and at appeal. RR/1999/1643P and RR/1999/2270/P 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 2001 Hansard Col. 240/241/242. 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.

Rother Distinct Council should note that the Director of Bedford Park, the proposed developer of the Spindlewood site is the same Mr. Ellis that is also a Director of Exigo, the provider of the traffic consultation both companies being registered at the same address in North Street Hailsham.

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 less than fifty feet from Meads Road. Too tight for heavy goods vehicles. There are poor sight lines. There is nowhere 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 into 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 s=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, school, jobs, train stations and access to St Leonards and Hastings without using the A259.

Site BX101 at Northeye which is a brownfield site.

I do not agree with Policy BEX9 - it is a greenfield site, whereas the BEX124 is a more suitable site as it offers an existing Business Park with future employment possibilities to support housing development, and better road and road links.

I prefer for you to opt for Site BX124 the North Access Road (Bexhill) as the infrastructure there will be better provided - schools, shops, surgery (doctors) etc.

It would be more appropriate (if you really must build on agricultural land instead of a brown field site) to have far fewer houses of quality appropriate to the existing properties in the area.

The suggested site at Spindlewood Drive is inappropriate on a greenfield site level.

But it is totally inappropriate, dangerous and impracticable on a planning issue if the access was onto Spindlewood Drive, Meads Road and Maple Walk.

The consultation vehicle survey is a load of rubbish and untruth, I walk that route i.e. Maple Walk, Meads Road, Little Common shops. Its already too busy and congested. My grandsons, daughter and wife, whilst walking, had a confrontation with a motorcyclist. If the site ever was developed, and it should not be, the access must be off Barnhorn Road, not some Twitten.

* The loss of so much green field land in development is concerning. Once it is gone it is gone for ever. Clearly, Rother is required to meet targets for new housing and presumably there are insufficient brown field sites to do this. However, it seems important to take only those green field sites where there is no viable alternative and which will best meet the needs of new and existing residents.

* I do not agree with the designation of the land off Spindlewood Drive as a preferred site. The need for extra housing to be built here has not been adequately demonstrated. The site at Spindlewood Drive is a greenfield site. Substantial development on a greenfield site in Little Common is already planned for Barnhorn Green and another 67 houses are now proposed for that development. Further loss of greenfield land off Spindlewood Drive seems unnecessary since houses could be built at Northeye (a brown field site). This together with further planned developments on Barnhorn Road not included in this proposal (31 houses next to Ashridge Court, 10 flats replacing nos 45 and 47 Barnhorn Road and the 17 flats to be built in Little Common centre) make a total of new dwellings that exceeds the 160 planned for the land off Spindlewood Drive.

* The lack of infrastructure to support the number of new residents in little Common and the increased pressure on the A259 around Little Common are also cause for concern. Traffic congestion varies but there are times when delays are considerable. Further housing development in Little Common will add to the volume of traffic if for no other reason than that new residents will use cars to travel to work, secondary schools and retail outlets.

* The expansion of housing at N BAR link road (policy BEX3, options 2 or 3) which could provide an additional 215 houses is part of a community development with supporting infrastructure centred on the building of new roads. As such, and given its location, it would provide better access to existing and planned infrastructure and to work opportunities, particularly to the proposed business and commercial development in that area. It is, therefore, despite also being a green field site, a more suitable site than the land off Spindlewood Drive for additional housing development.

* There does not seem to be any mention of a policy to bring empty housing back in to use in Rother. Figures for 2014 -2015 show 230 houses in Bexhill (516 over the whole of Rother) as standing empty for 6 months or more. These properties alone could replace a substantial housing development. Does the council intend to find ways to bring this empty housing back into use.

General comment on BX101, BX1 16 and BX120 all situated West of Little Common roundabout. The latter two sites BX116 should be deleted and BXI01 and BX 120 developed only as outlined in response to questions about these sites.

Building hundreds of houses on these three sites situated in an already congested area will put undue pressure on the existing infrastructure and resources.

Both the local School and the local Doctor's Surgery are rapidly nearing, or have already reached, the maximum capacity stage. They do not have any potential for extension on their present sites, while access and parking is already very difficult.

Parking in Little Common is already at a premium and will only get worse with an influx of new residents. This situation affects access to the Post Office, our local shop, the Library, the Community Centre and some Church Halls, restricting residents using these essential services.

The A259 sections between the Denbigh and the roundabout and between Northeye and the roundabout are frequently gridlocked and the cars of any new residents will come to a standstill. This means that the building of the North Bexhill Access Road should have priority above all other development projects, if only to improve access to the Conquest Hospital.

Site BX 116 is considered to be inappropriate for development. More appropriate sites would be BX101 at Northeye - a brownfield site which should always have preference and site BX124 - NBAR link road - options 2 or 3 which will have better infrastructure access to essential services such as doctors, schools, pharmacies and hospital.

The proposed access into Spindlewood Drive and the Meads Road is impractical. Because of the number of vehicles currently parked in these roads by residents and non-resident both roads are restricted to a single carriageway. The additional traffic the site would generate would lead to extensive traffic delays at the junction with Cooden Sea Road, increased danger when joining that road, particularly when turning right and significant additional traffic using the Little Common Roundabout. It would also result in a substantial increase in air pollution and in the resulting health issues.

No major developments should be considered for the area west of the Little Common roundabout until a full assessment can be undertaken of the overall effect on services and roads in the Little Common area, of the Barnhorn Green development. This would mean deferring a decision on site BX116 for approximately 5 years or until the Barnhorn site is completed and fully occupied.

The access to the planned development in Spindlewood Drive is not adequate. Meads Avenue is a very narrow road and hold-ups already occur due to the number of cars parked on both sides of the road, making travel in both directions, very hazardous and slow.

The infrastructure proposed for North Bexhill BEX3 can incorporate sufficient access for a larger development. Therefore, at the very least, RDC should consider the allocation of affordable house flats proposed for BEX9 - Spindlewood Drive to BEX3 new NBAR link.

With the Help to Buy mortgage scheme over is the quota for affordable houses still viable. If such properties are left vacant what would RDC solution before social housing.

Preferred Residential Development Sites

I do not agree that the proposed Spindlewood site is appropriate with the state of its infrastructure, one entrance to the proposed site, I can see that all the traffic including heavy lorries would use Meads Road already heavily use for parking, no heavy lorries would use Maple Walk, single lane and unadopted, entrance into Spindlewood has parking on the left and right. No mention has been made of the new Barn Horn Green site that has already got the go ahead Traffic is already starting to queue heavy with the traffic sometimes running back as far as the Lamb Inn on the A259, the new traffic lights will not cure this problem.

Major road alterations are to be carried out to the Coppell roundabout at Polegate leading onto and off the A27. Once the alterations are completed by Highway England, this will mean that the traffic that leaves the A27 going East will arrive at Little Common A259 so much quicker thus leading to heavy congestion and major traffic jam.

With the possibility of added traffic from the proposed Spindlewood site it's going to get gridlocked.

It is known that the air pollution levels around Little Common are close to breaching safe levels so it is expected to be even higher air pollution when the building starts at Barnhorn Green site.

This is why proposed site BX124-the new North Bexhill Access Road (NEAR) where 450 houses are currently proposed (option 1)but where numbers could be increased by between 65 and 215.

The infrastructure is already in place and is a major factor for this to go forward.

Another more suitable site is BX101 at North Eye another preferred brownfield site where a possible 115 houses are proposed as an option (but which are not currently included in RDC total of 1044.

Access from this proposed site is straight onto the A259; yes traffic will increase for traffic going East but with larger towns like Eastbourne and Brighton having more industrial works I can see more traffic heading west, and with Coppell roundabout having major reconstruction works traffic will flow a lot more easily.

1. These comments are submitted as a joint response from the Spindlewood Drive Action Group (SPINDAG) and thus represent the majority views of a large number of local residents (c.400) living in and around the Spindlewood Drive proposed development area.

2. SPINDAG is not opposed to the concept of residential development within the Bexhill area and is conscious of the pressures Rother Council are under to provide a suitable number of properties to meet their target of 3100 by 2028. SPINDAG have taken these imperatives into account when formulating their concerns as stated below.

3. The Spindlewood Drive development proposal (BEX09/BX116) is unsuitable primarily on the grounds of the lack of suitable infrastructure around the Little Common area. This concern does not just apply to BEX9 but also and equally to BX101 (Northeye).

a. Little Common has insufficient infrastructure to support further large scale residential developments on top of the other developments that are either currently under way or proposed and which in total could amount to some 465 houses. Current and agreed developments around Little Common include Barnhorn Green (BX120 - 342 properties), the former Nat West Bank in Cooden Sea Road (RR/2015/3103/P - 8 properties), 45/47 Barnhorn Road (RR/2016/2430/P - 8 dwellings); potential developments include land adjacent to Ashridge Court Care Home, Barnhorn Road (BX50 - (RR/2016/3206/P - 31 properties)), the former Co-Op site in Cooden Sea Road (RR/2016/3254/P - 9 properties) and Sidley Sports Ground Glovers Lane (RR/2016/3127/P) - 65 properties.

b. Little Common's current infrastructure simply will not cope with additional large numbers of properties and people. Little Common surgery is already close to capacity, there are no vacancies at Little Common primary school and no local secondary schools. There are little or no prospects of anyone finding jobs around Little Common and good train services are only available at Bexhill town centre, Hastings or Eastbourne. Shopping at Little Common is limited so larger shopping trips will need to take place elsewhere. In addition, the A259 is already close to capacity with 900 vehicles per hour in both directions throughout the day and this situation will be considerably exacerbated by the installation of traffic lights at the entrance to Barnhorn Green, the zebra crossing to be installed at Kite Nests Walk let alone the additional traffic generated by the residents of Barnhorn Green.

c. Due to the lack of suitable infrastructure, virtually all traffic resulting from the above mentioned developments will need to use their cars to go to work, take children to school and go to large shopping centres. This is harmful to the environment and will generate additional noise and air pollution especially around the A259.

d. There are serious car parking issues around Little Common with frequent and blatant breaches of parking laws as people double park or park on double yellow lines.

e. Any further large scale residential developments in or around Little Common will thus tip the local infrastructure into a state of crisis and must not therefore be permitted.

4. More Suitable Sites

a. There are far more appropriate sites to develop the properties proposed for Spindlewood Drive and Northeye. The most appropriate by far would be off the North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR - BEX3) - site ref BX124. Options 2 and/or 3 would be suitable (in addition to Option 1) due to the far better infrastructure availability for the residents and without serious detriment to the environment .

These include
i. Access to local jobs especially BX113 (with access directly off the NBAR) and Enterprise Way. Other job opportunities are also possible at St Leonards, Hastings and Bexhill and can all be accessed easily via Coombe Valley Way.
ii. Easy access to local schools including the newly proposed nursery and junior school in North East Bexhill as well as secondary schools, all accessed via Enterprise Way.
iii. 2 GP surgeries are within easy reach at Bexhill old town and Sidley
iv. Good shopping facilities are provided and easily accessed at Ravenside, St Leonards and Hastings.
v. A 24 hour pharmacy is provided at Ravenside and Tesco Extra at St Leonards is also available for long periods.
vi. Good train services are easily available at Bexhill and St Leonards Warrior Square without having to access the A259 (already running at close to capacity).
vii. Car access to all local areas is readily available via the NBAR and Coombe Valley Way and without needing to access the A259.
viii. The A21 and the Conquest Hospital are just a few minutes' drive away.

b. A second but far less suitable site would be BX101 (Northeye). This is a brownfield site so should be preferred over any greenfield site. The downside to developing this site for residential properties however, is the impact that the additional housing would have on Little Common's infrastructure including the A259.

5. The Spindlewood Site development (and others around Little Common) is superfluous

a. RDC have stated that they are not willing to take projected small windfall properties into account when estimating their target figure of 3100 for Bexhill. This is plainly wrong. RDC have well documented history of an average of 70 small site windfalls per annum being achieved over the past 10 years. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this will not continue until 2028 and the windfalls have no direct bearing or association with the DaSA process and projected development sites. The two issues are separate. An allowance of at least 35-40 windfalls per annum should therefore be incorporated into the DaSA process and projected housing completions. Without taking the windfalls into account, RDC run the real risk of making decisions on development sites that need not be developed (such as BX116) in order for RDC to meet (and perhaps) beat their target of 3100. Consequently peoples' lives and quality of life will be irrevocably damaged forever based on a false premise. That would be both tragic and unforgivable.

b. Using the figures contained in RDC's Housing Land Supply document dated as @ April 2016 and making allowance for projected small and large site windfalls over the period 2016 - 2028 as well as the recently proposed developments in and around Little Common as detailed in 3(a) above, SPINDAG estimate that Bexhill will be able to achieve approximately 3315 properties by the end of 2028. This exceeds by 215 the target set by RDC of 3100 and excludes the following sites
i. BEX6 - Turkey Road
ii. BEX7 - Fryatt's Way
iii. BEX9 - Spindlewood Drive
iv. BX101 - Northeye

c. Consequently, these 4 sites should be removed from the second DaSA consultation process.

6. Conclusion

a. The proposed development off Spindlewood Drive (as well as others shown above) is superfluous and inappropriate and would be highly detrimental to Little Common as a whole.

b. Alternative sites are far more appropriate in terms of access to local infrastructure facilities and minimal environmental damage, especially the NBAR site (BX124)

c. RDC must take small site windfalls into account when estimating the likely numbers of properties to be achieved up to 2028.

d. Spindlewood Drive (BX116) can then be removed from the second DaSA consultation process as it will have become superfluous.

Although I appreciate the need for additional homes in Bexhill and government pressure on RDC, any further development in Little Common would be entirely unsuitable for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is already struggling to cope. The GP surgery is nearly full, the primary school is fully subscribed, there is limited room for car parking and traffic on the A259 is already running at close to capacity with frequent serious congestion.
2. The new development planned at Barnhorn Green and other potential developments will exacerbate this situation and make matters even more difficult for Little Common residents.
3. A further 160 home development at Spindlewood Drive BX116 would lead to an unmanageable increase in traffic along the A259 and through Little Common as a further 300 or so cars emerge at peak periods carrying people from this new development to work or school.
4. Access to BX116 would be down Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive. These are minor residential roads incapable of coping with a huge increase in traffic. Meads Road is already congested with parked cars which require drivers to negotiate their way up and down the road which is invariably just a single lane.

Given that more residential development has to take place, I urge RDC to look more closely at more suitable sites. The most appropriate would be BX124 on the NBAR. The advantages would include:

1. Far better access to schools, GP surgeries, Conquest Hospital, the A21, shopping facilities and more accessible railway services at Bexhill and St Leonards on Sea.
2. Easy access to and from BX124 via NBAR which would result in less traffic using the A259 to access the Coombe Valley Way from the west.
3. The site of BX124 would not impact on any existing residents in Little Common nor detract from its overstretched infrastructure.

Conclusion
The proposed development at Spindlewood Drive BX116 would place an intolerable overload on all local services and amenities to the lasting detriment of current residents as well as new residents living in yet another development there. It would be far better to place this proposed development of 160 houses in BX124 where there is ample space, no strain on existing services and far better access via NBAR.

I am very concerned about the proposed number of houses to be built in Bexhill and Little Common. I understand that the Government target for Rother as a whole is about 5,700 dwellings, and the current proposals see Bexhill and Little Common shouldering this burden to the tune of 3,100 without the necessary infrastructure to support such development.

We are already short of school places, GPs, and dentists, and the roads cannot cope with current demands. Further developments will see Little Common becoming even more gridlocked by the excessive traffic.

I am most opposed to the development of BX116. I have no doubt that as a consequence Maple Walk and Maple Avenue will become rat runs. These are unadopted roads and the residents pay annually to a fund to maintain the surface of the road, clean the gullies, and keep the area tidy and litter-free. I am not prepared to subsidise road use for non-residents and have the environment in which I live become noisy and polluted.

As well as the points made above, I am also anxious about the use of a greenfield site that is below sea level and adjacent to an area of special scientific interest (and to the Pevensey Levels, that are protected under international law). I am not satisfied that the proposals put forward by the landowner/developer will protect the site sufficiently, nor that any consideration whatsoever has been given to the wider environmental impact of concreting over such a large area of land.

This is a peaceful and attractive area of Bexhill, and has an iimportant historical background because of the continuing links to De la Warr Estate, and should therefore be protected by becoming a conservation area.

In general, brownfield sites are clearly preferable to the despoiling of further parts of the countryside (as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework, paras 17, 89 and 111).

We have major concerns about the effect the Spindlewood site and any other associated developments in Little Common would have on Barnhorn Road (A259) as well as the associated traffic entering the Little Common Roundabout from Cooden Sea Road. Having looked through the traffic survey completed in April 2015 it is clear that this survey and the predictions have little bearing on the current situation. The Council should consider sites in the area of the North Bexhill Access road which would allow far more options and diffuse travel in the direction of Battle Ninfield and Hastings. (see site BX124 option3). At the very least delay decisions until the effect of Barnhorn Green on Barnhorn Road is known.

We understand the need for more housing, but the council need to look at the issues relating to the A259 (Barnhorn Road) and the ability of people to access the town from the west. This relates to both private and commercial vehicles and is important for the economy of the town. Little Common is already reaching severe problems with the amount of traffic and to attract commerce and industry to the town we need easy communication links on our main routes of which the A259 is a major link from the west, London and the north. We understand from recent figures from Highways England that congestion levels around Little Common roundabout and along Barnhorn Road are close to the maximum capacity levels that were predicted for 2028, and this is before any development takes place.

The effect of the Barnhorn Green development has yet to be seen with the new junction near the Greyhorses flats and the much needed pedestrian crossing near Kites Nest Walk. The suggested potential access to Barnhorn Road from Spindlewood would sit very closely between these and in our view cause a dangerous and chaotic situation particularly so close to the bend.

We have lived on Barnhorn Road since 1988 and have experienced the road getting steadily busier with some congestion during morning and evening rush hours.

Since the Link road opened the situation has worsened very quickly against all predictions in the traffic survey and without any new development. The congestion often tails back to Barnhorn Hill and beyond at peak times from the west and there are continual queues many times of day during the week. This congestion is often reported on the Radio Sussex traffic news and makes access to our own house very difficult.

Recent example: (Monday 30th January 2017)
11.30am The traffic jam started at the top of Barnhorn Hill from the west to The Little Common roundabout.
1.30pm Temporary traffic lights set up by BT opposite the proposed junction for Barnhorn Green. This gave a good indication of the effect on traffic from the east.
Forty cars were counted from outside our house towards Little Common. This did not include those running up to the lights or those out of site in the east. This was not at rush hour time as this would probably have backed up on Little Common Road.
2,30pm The queue from the west stretched as far as Ashridge Nursing Home.

None of these times were during the morning and evening peaks

The sites BX115 and BX108 could easily be seen as future developments of Spindlewood (BX116) and create a further load on the junctions on Barnhorn Road.

We are concerned that the levels of pollution may have increased substantially and that a new pollution survey should be commissioned to assess the current health hazards to residents and those walking and driving along Barnhorn Road (including many families walking to school).

I believe the government's directive says that local authorities should look at brownfield sites for developments first. We are also wondering where all these people are coming from to live in these new houses and where are they going to work particularly if we cannot attract new industry to the town due to difficult road communications.

We would also like to make a comment on the consultation process which we feel unduly complicated and we doubt that many people would even attempt to take part. The advertising we have seen does not indicate the impact that these decisions will have on people's everyday lives in all parts of the town.