QUESTION 32: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX6? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Agree.

Vehicle access to Turkey Road is major problem with sight lines, road width, lack of pedestrian pavements to the west of proposed site.
Additional traffic flows to St Mary's Lane and Peartree Lane, if coupled with the additional traffic movements from the proposed North Bexhill Development BEX3 will create carnage.

Yes. Infilling.

I propose the following amendments:-
1. The northern boundary of the site abuts the remembrance garden of the cemetery and a buffer zone should be established between any development and the cemetery with appropriate landscaping and screening. This would ensure the privacy and peace of the people using the remembrance garden.
2. The density of the developments off of Barnhorn Road is just below 20 dwellings per hectare (RR/2015/3115/P is 3.41 hectares for 67 dwellings and RR/2015/3125 is 14.1 hectares for 275 dwellings). On the same basis the potential for the land adjacent to Cemetery Lodge /276 Turkey Road (1.2 hectares) would be 24 dwellings (subject to the buffer zone mentioned above).
3. The Land Registry entry (ESX 260039) for the site contains a covenant to the benefit of Rother District Council whereby the site cannot be used for any purpose other than the development of an indoor bowls centre and associated facilities. The site was owned by Rother District Council until its sale in 2002 for £70,000 with the covenant in place. Release of the covenant would increase the value of the site by £2-3 million which should be the sum charged by Rother for the release. In view of the material cost of releasing the covenant its existence should be included as a key constraint for developing the site.

Previous applications for this site were rejected due in the main to the type and density of housing proposed, considered not suitable for the area. Whilst I can only speak for myself, I believe a more sympathetic view would be taken by local residents if a more suitable scheme was proposed, such as retirement properties or bungalows. Whilst we all have to accept the need to additional housing these days, in this beautiful area residents will clearly fight hard against plans for inappropriate housing scheme's.

This is not suitable for residential housing. The rea should be reserved for future expansion of the cemetery and/or improvement to the road junctions. A little forsight please.

Road access to Turkey Road.
Foolhardiness in the extreme to entertain ANY access point for this site. Turkey Road is already a "rat-run", blighted by heavily ladden lorries full of bricks. Additionally vast tipper type lorries haul backwards and forwards to the brickworks. There is no scope for footpaths on north side of Turkey Rd, so all pedestrians will need to run the gauntlet of very heavily loaded lorries to reach the south side of the road. This, coupled with the already dangerous junction with St. Marys Lane, will only add to the poor visibility for both traffic and pedestrians.

Local bus service.
The ONLY existing service is Route 97. This service is not a frequent service and has been steadily reduced in recent years.
Older, or infirm residents on this site will not be well served by the current bus provision.

Close proximity to Bexhill Cemetery.
There appears to be almost no separation between the Cemetery and the northern perimeter to the proposed site.
Inevitably any development will bring added noise, be it traffic, music etc.
Can it not be accepted that the souls interred are due, at the very least, some peace and tranquility?

The bend near the proposed access from Turkey Road into this site is positively dangerous now, so how can more homes not potentially cause accidents, near-misses occur quite frequently, ask the locals living near here now! What about the quiet nature of the adjacent cemetery? Also, the wildlife would suffer. Suggested site is too dense and low-cost homes would be better suited at other proposed sites in the Bexhill area. Suspect parking and garden provision would be inadequate for needs as well!

Agree, ensure physical measures are in place to discourage inappropriate parking of motor vehicles. Electric Charging units for motorbilitly scooters and other Connected Autonomous Vehicles.

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 think Policy BEX6 should be amended to take into account cemetery expansion in the future.

Bex 6 Object

Bex 5
Object: this infilling 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 forever and I object to this development plan.

Land adjacent to Cemetery Lodge
Object

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 meter genuine buffer boundary. This it 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 later 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 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.

I make the following comment to Policy BEX6.

A valuable use of site but grave concerns regarding:

1. flow of local traffic
2. access for residents
3. the impact of construction traffic.

Wastewater Treatment

As you are aware. Southern Water is the statutory sewerage undertaker in Rother District. In line with paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), we have updated our site-by-site assessment of the sites with 20 or more dwellings identified in the draft Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) to determine whether capacity in the local sewerage network is sufficient to meet the anticipated demand.

That assessment reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate the proposed development, involving making a connection to the local sewerage network at the nearest point of adequate capacity.

a) Insufficient capacity

A lack of capacity is not a fundamental constraint to development however new or improved infrastructure would need to be provided in parallel with the development.

Connection to the sewerage network at the nearest point of adequate capacity is the mechanism by which the development can provide the local infrastructure required to service the sites. Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is insufficient. Planning policies and planning conditions, therefore, play an important role in ensuring that development is co-ordinated with provision of necessary infrastructure.

Unless planning policies support delivery of necessary underground sewerage infrastructure there is a risk that it will not be delivered in parallel with the development, leading to an unacceptable risk of foul water flooding in the area to both new and existing residents. This situation would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF, which requires the planning system to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to pollution.

It is likely that investment would be required to deliver additional wastewater treatment capacity. This strategic infrastructure, such as extensions to wastewater treatment works, can be planned and funded through the Price Review process, and coordinated with new development. Last year's (2015) price determination will fund the investment programme for the period to 2020. There will be another price review in 2019, covering the investment period 2020 to 2025. Adoption of development plan documents provides the planning certainty required to support investment proposals to Ofwat, the water industry's economic regulator.

We have therefore proposed policy provision below to secure delivery of necessary local sewerage infrastructure in parallel with development. Our proposed policy provision would be in line with paragraph 157 of the NPPF which states that Local Plans should 'plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this framework', and paragraph 177 of the NPPF outlines that it is important to ensure that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.

Furthermore, it is important to give early warning to prospective developers regarding the need to connect off-site, as it could add to the cost of development. Early warning will facilitate delivery of the necessary infrastructure as this infrastructure requirement can then be incorporated into the planning process at an early stage.

d) Proposed amendments

In line with the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance and to ensure a sustainable development, we propose that the following criteria are added to the list of considerations for the policy detailed above.

* A connection is provided to the local sewerage system at the nearest point of adequate capacity, in collaboration with the service provider.

BX 30, BEX6
Designated sites - Pevensey Levels SSSI hydrological catchment area.

Development proposals within the Pevensey catchment should include SuDS that deliver multiple benefits for the water environment, wildlife and people, and to achieve the greatest benefits, SuDS should be joined up at a landscape scale.
Note: Natural England would welcome the opportunity to work with the lpa and other partners to achieve this, and implement the related policies in the Rother District Local Plan.

Transport Strategy & Economic Development
BEXHILL Page 128

-Policy BEX6: Land adjacent to Cemetery Lodge /276 Turkey Road, Bexhill

BEX5, 6, 7, 9, 10 will be taken into consideration when a cycle network for this part of the town is being developed.

Landscape


BEXHILL Page 128

Yes to all Bexhill development polices

Archaeology

Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

BEXHILL Page 128

-Policy BEX6: Land adjacent to Cemetery Lodge /276 Turkey Road, Bexhill

The site has a medium potential to contain prehistoric, Roman and medieval remains. Any planning application would be expected to include an archaeological assessment in line with NPPF.
-GREEN

Ecology

BEXHILL Page 128

Yes