QUESTION 29: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Agree

No. Loss of green space and animal habitat.

I do not agree with the requirements of BEX3. Provision (iii) should be amended to reflect Option 3 at para 13.12 ie 665 dwellings and 6,500 sq m of business space . This would allow the traffic generated to access the local trunk roads via the NBAR and Bexhill Link Road. It would then no longer be necessary to build on the south of the A259 where traffic access is inadequate.

This would be an ideal place for the 50 affordable housing proposed for Spindlewood Drive to be built. These people would have better access to doctors, schools and shops. They would also have better access to the new link road, making it easier them to reach the A21 and possible jobs in Kent. Also better access to trains to commute to London. As opposed to Cooden station which does not have the same links for London.

The affordable housing proposed for the Spindlewood development would be better placed at the NBAR development. The residents would have much better access to Bexhill/St Leonard's/A21/Kent. This move would also reduce the amount of traffic using the congested A259. I am concerned about the amount of pollution the traffic using the A259 and surrounding area produces and it would obviously increase if the affordable housing was developed at Spindlewood rather than NBAR.

Again there is no mention of any new schools, doctors etc. You cannot build all these houses without the necessary infrastructure. Schools and doctors are oversubscribed already!

This greenfield site should not be developed at all. Site BX124 is much more suitable and the proposed development could be expanded to include affordable housing. This site would have better infrastructure to support the development.

This site would be much more suitable for the high density affordable housing that has been proposed for the Spindlewood Drive site. It would provide residents with the benefits of far better infrastructure with access to GP's surgeries, schools & shops that are currently already at full capacity in Little Common.

Option 1 seems to be the least harmful for this site but I have reservations about the density of redevelopment and how this would impact traffic, wildlife, flood risk and land drainage issues? Traveller places are always a contentious issue as people fear higher crime rates due to their "here today, gone tomorrow" attitudes. Police should probably be asked for an opinion about this?

as a resident of watermill lane, i have great concerns about the possible increase in petty crime and fly tipping in the area if the proposed pitches for a traveller site go ahead. I believe this aspect of the plan be abandoned.

I do not agree with the requirements of BEX3 as it stands.

Site BEX124 is clearly the best for any large scale development as it has excellent access to a wide range of facilities and will make the best of the existing local infrastructure.

I believe that this site should be even expanded as it presents none of the disruption that would occur with other "preferred" sites.

This would negate the need for development of several of the other sites, particularly BX116 which is totally unsuitable for several reasons. These are explained more fully in my comments on Qu 35

I do not agree with the requirements of BEX3 as it does not go far enough.

The development at site BX124 should be expanded to include Option 2. It would be a better site for affordable housing because it is nearer to existing schools ,medical facilities and employment opportunities.

It would also avoid the inevitable road congestion that would result from development on several of the other proposed sites.

No I disagree with the requirements of policy BEX3 where more affordable homes could be located for better infrastructure for access to GPs, Schools and shops and pharmacy at Ravenside.

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.

I farm at Buckholt Farm . I think there should only be 3 footpath crossings of the new road . 1 by the 269 roundabout , 2 by the Watermill Lane roundabout , 3 by the Buckholt Lane roundabout .All much safer places to cross . I believe the proposed footpath north of the road is not needed and will lead to encroachment into the ancient woodland causing untold damage to wild life. I would be interested in farming the land north of the road - east of watermill lane . lance gearing

I believe that Option3 of this Policy should be adopted for the following reasons:

1. Provide more housing to meet the DaSA Plan requirements and develop more of a new community feeling by providing a 'garden village' area.
2. It would minimise unnecessary car journeys by reason of having living and working areas in close proximity.
3. Access to other parts of Bexhill without need to travel on the A259.

Object: this is over-development, especially in Bexhill-on-Sea and over-calculation of genuine housing requirement for local people in this specific area. It seems the calculation is to mitigate the migration-drivers, to take up pressure otherwise in the Rother District catchment area (eg historic parishes and/or AONB) and even to assist Hastings Borough directives for allocation. Although I fully agree with the reasons to resist development elsewhere - it does not give justice to negate the value of Bexhill-on-Sea environments and historic features which should also be retained. The whole area will be spoilt for ever and I object to this development plan.

North Bexhill
If it goes ahead I would use you to only allocate the fewest possibly dwellings in this Local Plan - and not to be revisited to add more in a future allocation.

Minimum buffer to trees and hedgerows:
Always allow a 15-20 metre buffer between builds and trees/hedgerows
Please stipulate that any tree which is within the boundaries of an individual property in a new development has a 15-20 metre genuine buffer boundary. This is to protect individual trees, hedgerows, ecology areas, heritage assets (including those undesignated). The details plans should also encourage either a Tree Preservation Order and/or Covenants that no tree should be harmed. If it is also deemed diseased or dangerous a full report should be submitted by the owner to the council and a replacement tree would be planted in the same place.
Reason. In the event of plans to build with trees in the gardens the future occupants may wish to harm the tree if they find it inconvenient. this would be a loss to the environment and present wildlife corridors (example can be cited at boundaries of Jarvis Brook close in Bexhill-on-Sea, where most of the trees have gone - including trees planted by the developer - with loss of hedgerows and wildlife corridor).

Green spaces
Green spaces and surrounding trees, hedgerows and shrubs should not just be a token here and there, but in walking distance of existing development in Bexhill-on-Sea. This should be factored into the Local Plan as a resource for leisure, a visual amenity and retaining all wildlife corridors.

As mentioned in Q.27 Site ref BX124 - New NBAR link road is a much preferred option because the infrastructure will be far better access due to the new road being built which will obviously be designed to withstand the type of traffic that building a housing estate entails. There would be also be far less disruption to surrounding houses and far less disruption to surrounding roads. This would also take a lot of heavy traffic away from the already busyA259. The A259 is already congested into Little Common and that's without the planned housing development of over 300 houses at Barnhorn Green.

The land ref BX124 would be less demanding on the existing environment than Spindlewood Drive and I am therefore keen to see further development approved by adding housing from the BEX09/BX116 proposals. The area is less encumbered on a restrictive basis and with the ability, or at least potential, to extend the North Bexhill Access Road westward from the A269 towards the A259 at Hooe creating, in effect, a Little Common by-pass which would ensure easy access to the BX124 from East to West. Another major highlight for future residents would be closer links to school, doctor's surgeries and retail parks.

This is a sensible option, BEX3 would have the access and infrastructure to support the development.

There would be added benefits for shops at Ravenside and GPs/schools at Old Bexhill and Sidley.

This site has far better access way from the A259.

I make the following amendments to Policy BEX3:

1. Priority. Protect Ancient Woodland before clearing site.
2. Plant replacement native species, using locally sourced stock.
3. Consider Eco homes.
4. Starter homes to local residents prior to others.

BEX3 is the least intrusive and therefore the much preferred option.

Traffic will be able to travel north towards Tunbridge Wells or east towards Hastings without entering Bexhill and causing as little as possible disruption, to the already overused A259.

Residents in this area would have better access and options to:- school, doctors' surgeries, shops and pharmacies at Ravenside. A far more sensible and safer solution.

All brownfield and small greenfield sites should be developed before any others and thereby making the development of the Spindlewood site unnecessary. This prioritisation is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paras 17, 89 and 111. The additional 730+ houses proposed in this way plus those resulting from redeveloping land already occupied by existing very low density housing should make the need for the Spindlewood development completely unnecessary.

Of all the non-brownfield sites the North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR) Option1, 2 and 3 should be actioned as one complete development, resulting in some 730 houses. It has to be better to concentrate disruption etc. in one area and thereby have minimal or no impact on a number of existing diverse and different communities. It also must be financially more advantageous. In addition this largest development has an excellent infrastructure i.e. road connections to St Leonards and Hastings, nearby GP surgeries schools, shops, pharmacies and local work place opportunities. It is also the most environmentally friendly option.

I don't agree to the requirements of BEX3 (Ref. BX124). The North Bexhill Access Road development gives an opportunity for 50 affordable houses suggested on the Spindlewood site which could be sited off the NBAR as Option 2.

REASONS TO PREFER POLICY BEX3 (BX124)

Accessibility/lnfrastructure Benefits:

There would be a definite advantage for residents to be sited nearer to superior services afforded to them such as schools, doctors' surgeries, hospitals, leisure facilities in the nearby areas, plus easy access to Sidley, Enterprise Way, Hastings, St. Leonards, Bexhill town centre and Ravenside. No other area of Bexhill is better suited than BX124 for further development due to its location with access to theA21 which could well bring more business and visitors to the area thus helping to grow the local economy and give job opportunities closer to home to the residents of the new NBAR development.

Employment opportunities in Little Common are few and far between, so any residents living on a new development in this location would have to travel further afield, and with only one Primary School already oversubscribed and no Secondary School, children would have to be driven to other areas. Extra car journeys would increase the already congested A259, Little Common Roundabout and its approach roads, plus give rise to drivers needing to find a possible 'rat run' through Maple Walk and Maple Avenue to Cooden Sea Road to avoid the inevitable hold-ups at
Meads Road Junction to access this road.

Ease congestion on A259 at Little Common:

Roads around Little Common, particularly the A259, cannot take increased traffic flows into that Area from a site at Spindlewood Drive; there is already considerable traffic coming into the Roundabout from Pear Tree Lane, Chestnut Walk and Cooden Sea Road, as well as the existing traffic flow along the A259, which at peak times runs into 900 vehicles per hour in both directions. Unnecessary car journeys would be avoided if Pol. BEX3

New Territories:

This new undeveloped area offers a chance to consider an unencumbered approach for new homes and businesses which would not encroach or detract from areas such as Bexhill which would be the case if other preferred sites were given the 'go ahead'. With new shops and local amenities within the development being created, this would encourage a 'sense of community'.

Little Common By-Pass:

A much needed by-pass to Little Common would be on offer if NBAR was to be taken westwards from the A269 out to the A259 near the Lamb Inn at Hooe. Easy access to BX124 from east and west would be available without causing disruption to local roads around St. Mary's Lane, which has been flagged up as a key constraint.

Option 3 of Pol. BEX3 Possibilities:

Rather than developing to the south of NBAR RDC's housing needs could preferably be met by additionally adopting Option 3 which includes land to the north of NBAR. This would take extra strain off existing residents in other areas of Bexhill wherever land can be identified. If, in ten years plus time, additional housing is required, the area north of NBAR could be considered; there is not only plenty of space but local amenities would already be in place.

Air and Noise Pollution:

It would be highly unlikely-that an increase in BX124 Development would create a greater amount of traffic on the A259 than other preferred sites, thus the already high levels of pollution and noise elsewhere in Bexhill could be more easily controlled, lowering the associated risk of dementia and lung disease to local residents.

Conclusion:

BX124 Developments would enhance the whole area and bring together a sustainable community with exciting local amenities and most importantly not disadvantage the lives of people living in other areas of Bexhill which has often been described as The Jewel in the Crown" and "The best Kept Secret". We have recently moved to Cooden and this village lives up to its reputation of charm and tranquillity. Please don't let it be spoiled unnecessarily.

Evolving BX124 seems a much more achievable and realistic prospect because of its potential for development. Existing space for homes and businesses allows for exciting developmental opportunities.

The lack of an existing residential environment allows space to introduce a new community hub alongside local shops and other business prospects and amenities.

A new community that does not encroach on existing, well established residential hubs should be viewed as a positive move.

I don't agree to the requirements of BEX3 (Ref. BX124). The North Bexhill Access Road development gives an opportunity for 50 affordable houses suggested on the Spindlewood site which could be sited off the NBAR as Option 2.

REASONS TO PREFER POLICY BEX3 (BX124)

Accessibility/lnfrastructure Benefits:

There would be a definite advantage for residents to be sited nearer to superior services afforded to them such as schools, doctors' surgeries, hospitals, leisure facilities in the nearby areas, plus easy access to Sidley, Enterprise Way, Hastings, St. Leonards, Bexhill town centre and Ravenside. No other area of Bexhill is better suited than BX124 for further development due to its location with access to theA21 which could well bring more business and visitors to the area thus helping to grow the local economy and give job opportunities closer to home to the residents of the new NBAR development.

Employment opportunities in Little Common are few and far between, so any residents living on a new development in this location would have to travel further afield, and with only one Primary School already oversubscribed and no Secondary School, children would have to be driven to other areas. Extra car journeys would increase the already congested A259, Little Common Roundabout and its approach roads, plus give rise to drivers needing to find a possible 'rat run' through Maple Walk and Maple Avenue to Cooden Sea Road to avoid the inevitable hold-ups at
Meads Road Junction to access this road.

Ease congestion on A259 at Little Common:

Roads around Little Common, particularly the A259, cannot take increased traffic flows into that Area from a site at Spindlewood Drive; there is already considerable traffic coming into the Roundabout from Pear Tree Lane, Chestnut Walk and Cooden Sea Road, as well as the existing traffic flow along the A259, which at peak times runs into 900 vehicles per hour in both directions. Unnecessary car journeys would be avoided if Pol. BEX3

New Territories:

This new undeveloped area offers a chance to consider an unencumbered approach for new homes and businesses which would not encroach or detract from areas such as Bexhill which would be the case if other preferred sites were given the 'go ahead'. With new shops and local amenities within the development being created, this would encourage a 'sense of community'.

Little Common By-Pass:

A much needed by-pass to Little Common would be on offer if NBAR was to be taken westwards from the A269 out to the A259 near the Lamb Inn at Hooe. Easy access to BX124 from east and west would be available without causing disruption to local roads around St. Mary's Lane, which has been flagged up as a key constraint.

Option 3 of Pol. BEX3 Possibilities:

Rather than developing to the south of NBAR RDC's housing needs could preferably be met by additionally adopting Option 3 which includes land to the north of NBAR. This would take extra strain off existing residents in other areas of Bexhill wherever land can be identified. If, in ten years plus time, additional housing is required, the area north of NBAR could be considered; there is not only plenty of space but local amenities would already be in place.

Air and Noise Pollution:

It would be highly unlikely-that an increase in BX124 Development would create a greater amount of traffic on the A259 than other preferred sites, thus the already high levels of pollution and noise elsewhere in Bexhill could be more easily controlled, lowering the associated risk of dementia and lung disease to local residents.

Conclusion:

BX124 Developments would enhance the whole area and bring together a sustainable community with exciting local amenities and most importantly not disadvantage the lives of people living in other areas of Bexhill which has often been described as The Jewel in the Crown" and "The best Kept Secret". We have recently moved to Cooden and this village lives up to its reputation of charm and tranquillity. Please don't let it be spoiled unnecessarily.

All brownfield and small greenfield sites should be developed before any others and thereby making the development of the Spindlewood site unnecessary. This prioritisation is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paras 17, 89 and 111. The additional 730+ houses proposed in this way plus those resulting from redeveloping land already occupied by existing very low density housing should make the need for the Spindlewood development completely unnecessary.

Of all the non-brownfield sites the North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR) Option1, 2 and 3 should be actioned as one complete development, resulting in some 730 houses. It has to be better to concentrate disruption etc. in one area and thereby have minimal or no impact on a number of existing diverse and different communities. It also must be financially more advantageous. In addition this largest development has an excellent infrastructure i.e. road connections to St Leonards and Hastings, nearby GP surgeries schools, shops, pharmacies and local work place opportunities. It is also the most environmentally friendly option.

As residents of St. Mary's Lane my wife and I have considerable concern over the effect of traffic on this country lane. In the last few years traffic on St. Mary's Lane has increased markedly and it is now, as mentioned in the draft document, a 'rat run'. In addition the existing access onto/from the A269 at the North end of the lane is dangerous and resulted in a number of quite serious accidents. There are also frequent minor accidents on the 's' bend which are not reported to the police. More traffic generated by the new Sidley bypass will only exacerbate this problem.

We have several suggestions to make:-

* Do not have any new access on to St. Mary's Lane from any new development.

* Build a new section of road between the lane, to the north of the recreation ground (before the s-bend), cutting across the strip of land south and east of Little Bersden and meeting the A269 south east of the new Sidley bypass. The north facing hill, which is already heavily wooded, is an adequate "woodland buffer". This would make the existing exit on to the A269 much quieter and used only by immediate residents. New roads within the new housing development can feed onto this new section of road.

* All and every proposal for St. Mary's Lane must address the twin problems of excessive speed and vehicle size. At present nearly every commercial vehicle using the lane is over the width limit. Most cars and lorries exceed the speed limit. There is no provision for countering these abuses. One assumes cameras and traffic calming measures can be introduced but these will be of no use if they are not policed.

With regard to the requirements of Policy BEX3 we would favour Option 1 (ret. BX124). However, we are at a loss to understand the omission of the 2 properties to the west of St.Mary's Lane - Bramble Cottage and The Spinney. These two properties and the field between them have a natural boundary on their western boundary which would fulfil the requirements of maintaining a land buffer with Lunsford Cross just as well as the present proposal but help the council fulfil it's housing quota.

We would like the council to give these comments serious consideration. We are directly affected by these proposals and a minor change to option 1 boundary would help us but not affect the council's desired buffer zone.

Whilst I disagree with anything that impacts on the character of Bexhill, this proposal offers the least intrusive solution. Access to the site would be well served by roadways and offer movement towards both Hastings and Tunbridge Wells without congesting Bexhill and the A259.

The area already enjoys a better infrastructure and ability to cope with expansion than other sites. Importantly the character of Bexhill would be preserved and existing residents inconvenienced as little as possible.

I would like to only partially agree to Policy BEX3 with a slight but reasonable amendment i.e. it would be reasonable to site an additional number of affordable housing say around 50-60) on this NBAR site development this taking away the 50-60 affordable housing proposed for the Spindlewood Drive development (BX116).

The infrastructure around the NBAR site (BX124) will hugely benefit the residents and families i.e. better access to GPs (at Sidley and old Bexhill, good transport links to schools, shops, pharmacies at Ravenside, St. Leonards and Hastings and Bexhill using the Coombe Valley Way) without increasing traffic flows on the A259. All this will benefit and be a great advantage to the day to day lives of these new residents and families and them happy and less stressful.