QUESTION 35: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX9? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Agree.

We are very concerned about the "over development" and the impact on the infrastructure of Little Common, especially the increase in traffic flow and the use of Maple Walk/Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive. Also the roundabout at Little Common (A259) is not fit for purpose as it is, with frequent congestion.

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

We moved to Little Common in 2015 to escape the "over development" in the London suburbs and were not aware of this planning proposal until now.

I do not agree with this proposed development. There is insufficient access for works traffic along Meads Road or Maple Walk. Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are both unadopted roads and maintained through residents contributions. Any additional traffic via these roads will make the road surface deteriorate quicker and therefore cost the residents, of which I am one, more to maintain. This village is crowded enough already and any further development should take place on the outskirts of the village. I also recommend that a bypass of little common be urgently considered to reduce traffic congestion on the A259.

No agreement.
Although land is potentially suitable for limited development the access from Spindlewood Drive to Little Common via Meads Road is wholly inadequate. Residential parking in Meads Road is at best at maximum capacity and at times totally dangerous.
The junction of Meads Road into Cooden Sea Road is poor and dangerous due to lines of sight.
Additional vehicle movements from Spindlewood Drive south into Maple Walk will present a real and present danger due to lack of pedestrian pavement and narrowness of existing road way.
The cumulative effect of the, now approved developments BX120 and larger Barnhorn Green site if coupled with BEX9 would have a major impact on Little Common.
Road capacity at Little Common A259 roundabout is currently full at peak times.
Air quality of stationary/slow moving vehicles will create health hazards for young and old.
Where will the children from the cumulative developments be schooled and how will they be ferried to infant/ junior education facilities?
Medical facilities, given the current and future age profile of the Little Common catchment are at maximum capacity now.
The development site is outside of the existing Develoment Boundary.
This site must be rejected or significantly be scaled down if the problems envisaged are to be overcome.
Once the developments of the Greater Barnhorn Green, as approved, have been completed AND the residential sites are fully occupied a true assessment of the REAL impact on Little Common and its environs can be made or consulted upon.

No. This site is unsuitable for a wide range of reasons, several that the Council are aware of.
1. The entrance via Spindlewood Drive is not a viable entrance for the amount of traffic it would have to contend with. The only viable acess is via Barnholm Farm/Manor onto the A259. This road will be enhanced due to the Barnholm Green development.
2. The Pevensy Levels being a site of International ecological significance will be encroached on with the resultant loss of wildlife Badgers ,Crested Nets etc
3. The Pevensey Levels are also an area of low lying land which is liable to flooding with global warming and the present assessed risk being in Flooding Zone 2/3.
4. The Local area is poorly drained and the land is often sodden. This development will increase the lag time and will result in the increased risk of flooding to existing properties. Unlike the bland statement Should not increae flooding stated in the information.
5. With the increase in population the demand for amenities will be raised. Is there to be a new Primary School? Little Common is Good yet full, the development of Barnholm Green now without a Primary School will make the situation even worse. Will there be increased access to General Practitioners? The present Little Common Surgery is well over subscribed.
6.Where are the jobs for all of these people? Brighton, Eastbourne, Lewes,? Thse people will come to rely on their cars for transport and put a huge extra pressure on the A259. At present the long queues at peak time are time consuming and leading to 'Rat Runs 'being created, such as along Herbrand Walk and Sluice Road. Before any development takes place in or near Little Common the traffic flow has to be included.
7. The data you have used to assess the access to Spindlewood Drive does not reflect the real world. Meads Avenue is a narrow turning and with parked cars narrow. The turn into Spindlewood is also narrow and unsuitable particularly for heavier traffic flows than now.
8. This development will continue the expansion of urban areas which if not stopped and Green Belts established will lead to a continuous urban area from Hastings to
Eastbourne.
9.The development will lead to the loss of more Ancient woodland and other trees that now only form field boundaries.
10. Little Common is not the thriving commercial community as described in your information. The Coop has closed and in year has not been occupied. The main commercial activities are Estate Agents, Hair Salons and Cafes.
11. Before any development takes place in and around Little Common the traffic flow has to be improved.
12. Before development takes place the ecological barriers to existing properties MUST be planted extending at least 10 meteres from existing boundaries.

I do not agree with the requirements of Policy BEX9.

The proposed development off Spindlewood Drive should be deleted from the preferred list of sites as it is on the south side of Little Common and offers no direct access to the A259. Meads Road in Bexhill is quiet residential street approximately 400 metres long and 6m wide. Because the parking situation in Little Common is so bad this road is used regularly during the day by non-residents for long term parking and means that the road is then effectively a single carriageway with one or two passing places. The best model to choose when estimating its capacity is that of a rural lane with passing places. Studies show that roads of this type have a capacity between 100 and 300 vehicles per hour.

Meads Road serves the residents of that road, those of Spindlewood Close and it spurs and the private road Maple Walk. Currently this is approximately 172 dwellings (according to the Council Tax numbers) and generates 860 vehicle movements per day (using ESCC Transport Dept recommended figures) and 86 in the peak hour.

The proposed development of a further 160 dwellings off Spindlewood Drive will generate an additional 800 vehicle movements per day and 80 in the peak hour. Hence peak hour traffic is expected to rise to at least 166 vehicles per hour. The full traffic is assumed to use Meads Road as it is manifestly unreasonable to expect the householders who maintain Maple Walk to pay for the extra damage caused by so many vehicles belonging to people who do not contribute to the road upkeep. The junction of Meads Road and Cooden Sea Road is particularly hazardous with traffic
emerging from Meads road having a very restricted view of northbound traffic on Cooden Sea Road.

In addition, there may need to be considerable expenditure to mitigate the impact on the local services, specifically the sewage system that already has an unusual system of tanks designed to combat the effects of, inter alia, the local water
table that is very close to the surface. No mention has been made of the capability of other public services such as schools, the pharmacy and medical and dental practices to be able to absorb a further 160 households on top of the (275 agreed +67 proposed) for Barnhorn Green.

This would be one of the larger new sites and have an adverse impact on the local environment flora and fauna and existing housing both in terms of property values and character of this area of Little Common.

There are other locations north of Bexhill that have ample capacity to take this quantity of houses such as BX101, BX124 and even BX80. Both BX101 and BX124 could absorb the proposed 160 dwellings. The Sustainability Appraisal eliminated site BX80. However, some of the assessment decisions and weightings could be queried as many of the target criteria (eg 1-8, 11 & 16) apply equally to all new developments and other choices appear to be somewhat arbitrary.

I certainly do not agree with the proposed development of the site off of Spindlewood Drive. I think it is a very bad idea as Spindlewood Drive is a narrow, residential road with parking of large vehicles at the entrance to Spindlewood Drive. This would prohibit any large construction vehicles being able to turn into the road during the construction period.

Even worse is the access to Spindlewood Drive from Meads Road, where there is already parking on both sides of the road — even at the entrance to Meads Road, which is double yellow-banded. Of course, as usual no-one does anything about the violation of illegal parking. Does the Council intend to make both Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive double yellowing parking with the necessary enforcement procedures required to ensure that no parking violations occur?

Meads Road is already suffering from degradation of the road surface with residents fearing that heavy construction vehicles and additional traffic from the proposed Spindlewood Drive site would only make the matter worse. Residents have already reported that their homes and Meads Road itself shakes when large vehicles, such as dustcarts, pass over the road. The use of heavy construction vehicles during the building stage could even lead to the road collapsing and having to be reinforced. This would, of course, be a huge expense to the Highways Authority and great
inconvenience to local residents.

If the proposal of 160 houses in Spindlewood Drive goes ahead, this would result in additional numbers of vehicles using both Spindlewood Drive and Meads Road with the ensuing chaos of vehicles trying to turn out of Meads Road onto Cooden Sea Road into Little Common. There would then be further chaos at the roundabout at Little common with the extra traffic coming from the new Barnhorn Green site of 350 plus houses. This would create a total pinch-point into Little Common effectively destroying the whole village.

New residents may decide not to use Meads Road but to turn right at the end of Spindlewood Drive into Maple Walk, which is an unadopted, extremely narrow road. This could lead to a total impasse of vehicles along this road. Maple Walk is already paid for by the residents and they should be compensated for any future wear and tear caused by extra vehicles from the proposed site if the development goes ahead.

Any social housing on the Spindlewood site would be totally out of keeping with
surrounding properties.

The local primary school in Little Common is already at breaking point and cannot accommodate any more young children.

Local GPs and the pharmacy in Little Common are greatly overstretched with the pharmacy dealing with over 800 prescriptions per day. They certainly could not deal with even more people moving into this fast becoming overcrowded part of East Sussex.

The proposed site is already home to several rare species of newts and fen raft spiders and despite the developer saying that he has carried out surveys and is taking them into account when building, I very much doubt that many of these species will remain unharmed.

There are already known problems with flooding at the bottom of the field off of Spindlewood Drive and building these homes will not improve that situation.

Air pollution levels around Little Common are close to breaching safety levels and certainly the addition of many more vehicles could lead to these levels rising to danger levels to all local residents.

I strongly oppose this site as it would have a detrimental effect on the well being and living of a great many people. The road that Spindlewood Drive leads into is not designed for a high volume of traffic, neither is the surrounding roads, Maple Avenue, Maple Walk and Clavering Walk would become rat runs. Two of these roads are private roads which are maintained at a high cost by the residents living in these roads. The increased pollution would have huge effect on the people living in the surrounding area. BX124 and BX101 are preferred.

Where will the children go to school? There are no schools being built to accommodate all the extra housing.
What about doctors and dentists?
If you are going to built all the extra houses you must improve the infrastructure as well.

Policy BEX9

I do not agree with the requirements of Policy BEX9 for reason as follows -

1. The vehicle access to/from the proposed site from Spindlewood Drive via Meads Road and/or Maple Walk is wholly inadequate in terms of carriage way width, junction layout, visibility and lines of sight. These facts are true today in an undeveloped format.

2. If development is permitted the traffic flows onto Barnhorn Road from Cooden Sea Road through little common roundabout will be excessive.

3. By reason of point 2 the congestion of traffic, especially at peak times, will be slow moving with potential of increase noxious vehicle emissions. The age profile of Little Common gives serious concerns to the health of the elderly living in properties close to the A259 and to pupils attending the local primary school.

4. No consideration has been made in relation to the negative effect on vehicle congestion which will relate to the, already approved ,mass development of Barnhorn Green.

5. Cumulative developments of Barnhorn Green, as amended, proposed flats, subject to approval x 2, in Cooden Sea Road have not been considered when proposing bex9....why?

6. Without investment in infrastructure - school places, doctors surgery capacity, free car parking for employees and customers of local shops little common will simply be overwhelmed.

7. Alternative sites for large scale development are identified in the consultation document and these must be considered far more suitable by any right minded unbiased individual

8. The land, currently forming part of a working farm, has sustained a diverse range of flora and fauna (foxes, badgers, birds, slow worms, stoats, grass snakes and bats all of which visit our garden from the fields). Development of this scale will seriously disturb the balance of nature.

9. The land is current outside of the RDC development boundary. The purpose of such boundary was to define developed land. This can and must not be redefined simply because it suits planners, developers and capital grasping land owners.

10. Further use of greenfield sites seems pointless. Bexhill contains large areas of brownfields which would be better suited to development. I accept this may cause developers more problems as contaminated and developed land clearance is a far more costly option. Not my problem.

11. If RDC are hell bent on pursuing BEX9 I would propose a moratorium for, say, 10 years. This will allow the full cumulative effects of the local developments (Barnhorn Green etc.) To be fully factored in. Traffic flows and air quality will be factually recorded. School and medical services will be fully tested. This will replace the hypothetical with fact.

Question 27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site BX1OI at Northeye which is a brownfield site.

Question 35

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

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

Rother District Council stand up for your own environmental policies.

1) Access and egress from proposed site too narrow.

2) At present it is very difficult to get out of Spindlewood Drive into Meads Road.

3) Increase in traffic would cause chaos at junction with Cooden Sea Road & Little Common Roundabout.

4) Site entrance should be on Barnhorn Road.

5) Increase Barnhorn Green (BX120)

1) The use of Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive for vehicular access to the proposed site (BX116) is totally inappropriate. Neither Road is wide enough to accommodate the heavy vehicles that would need to be involved.

2) The 90degree angle turn at the junction of Meads Road with Spindlewood Drive would not cater for large lorries. The actual proposed gateway in Spindlewood Drive is on a bend in the narrow road which would make it more dangerous than it is already.

3) The junction of Meads Road with Cooden Sea Road is currently dangerous to negotiate particularly if one is existing Meads Road and turning right into Cooden Sea Road.

4) The only sensible potential access to Site BX116 would be from Barnhorn Road (A259) but that too would present major traffic problems.

5) The reduction in the quality of life of all residents in the neighbourhood would be substantial.

6) Site BX124 would be much more appropriate.

The ingress and exit road onto Meads on the proposed preferred option of
Spindlewood Drive, Little Common development (160 homes) seems to have been
designed for a small residential area with limited driver use. The proposed estate
being built at the end of the drive will increase the size and number of cars at least
fourfold. With that much increased car use accessing and leaving Spindlewood and
feeding into Meads Road, itself narrow and used for on-road parking, there will be an
increased risk of accidents and frustration by those having to get to work, school and
appointments.
The new homeowners will use Maple Walk or any other designated 'road' to access
Cooden Drive. Maple Walk is narrow with a current speed limit of 20mph and also
used by older residents fit enough to walk into the village and who currently need to
use car driveways to let cars past. Besides being a private road, one of several.
The plan appears not to have a new exit road at this time only pointing out the
possibility of one in the future, although there appears to be a footpath.
I feel this will be a problem for the immediate residents on Spindlewood and Meads
which does not seem to have been fully acknowledged in the plan and also for the
surrounding area where it is the residents who have to pay to have the roads
repaired or improved.

I am writing to your express my objection to the development adjoining Spindlewood Drive Little Common.

My reasons are as follows:

1. The number of houses, with the extra cars, will increase the traffic in Barnhorn Road, Meads Road and the adjoining roads to an unacceptable level.

2. The increased traffic will make Cooden Sea Road even more dangerous, because there is no footway between Maple Walk and Clavering Walk. This is a matter that has been raised with the highway authority over a number of years, but so far nothing has been done. At some time a very serious accident, may be fatal, will occur.

3. There is no provision for an increased in the services in the proposed development, either schooling or medical. Both are fully stretched in Little Common at the moment.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site BX116 should be removed from the Options and Preferred Options plan.

Agree with proposal subject to following conditions being implemented:
1. Housing stock is limited to good quality low rise owner occupied property with limited shared ownership properties. No social housing for rent should be incorporated. This should be located north of Sidley where Bexhill's social housing is already located.
2. Access to site needs to be further explored to prevent Little Common village becoming more congested on Cooden Sea Road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site BX116 should be removed from the Options and Preferred Options plan.

We do NOT agree to the inclusion of Policy BEX9 and, in particular, site BX116 as either an Option Site or a Preferred Option site.

Our rationale was set out clearly in our responses to question 27 but we summarise below the critical grounds of objection:

* Inappropriate application of Town and Country Planning principles in the assessment of selection criteria
* Inappropriate and poor analysis of Council data about actual historic and forecast housing numbers
* Ill considered assessment of transportation/road infrastructure impact and incorrect conclusions as to the consequences of the allocation of Site BX116 as an Option or Preferred Option site
* Unbalanced assessment and appreciation of the effects of Site BX116 allocation on the physical environment, ecology, landscape, flora and fauna of the site and its surrounding areas including Sites of Special Scientific Interest and RAMSARS. These impacts have been understated by Council officers in pursuance of the very narrow housing site numbers
* The site is in the wrong location for volume housing compared with other sites (e.g. BX124) which already have additional capacity and are better placed in terms of community, access to Bexhill's facilities, major shops, schools and transport links

We request that Policy BEX9 and, in particular, Site BX116 be removed from the site allocation plan.

We do NOT agree to the inclusion of Policy BEX9 and, in particular, site BX116 as either an Option Site or a Preferred Option site.

Our rationale was set out clearly in our responses to question 27 but we summarise below the critical grounds of objection:

* Inappropriate application of Town and Country Planning principles in the assessment of selection criteria
* Inappropriate and poor analysis of Council data about actual historic and forecast housing numbers
* Ill considered assessment of transportation/road infrastructure impact and incorrect conclusions as to the consequences of the allocation of Site BX116 as an Option or Preferred Option site
* Unbalanced assessment and appreciation of the effects of Site BX116 allocation on the physical environment, ecology, landscape, flora and fauna of the site and its surrounding areas including Sites of Special Scientific Interest and RAMSARS. These impacts have been understated by Council officers in pursuance of the very narrow housing site numbers
* The site is in the wrong location for volume housing compared with other sites (e.g. BX124) which already have additional capacity and are better placed in terms of community, access to Bexhill's facilities, major shops, schools and transport links

We request that Policy BEX9 and, in particular, Site BX116 be removed from the site allocation plan.

No to BEX9. The Bexhill link road has dramatically added to traffic around the Little Common area in all directions causing chaos. The introduction of 160 houses will add significantly to blockages in the village and will drive exiting traffic to the south along roads which are not suited in design or structure to take the extra load. Roads to the south of Spindlewood should have traffic calming measures throughout. Actual development should be phased to measure the effect on the surrounding roads. Fairness requires the council to adopt all unadopted roads as these levels of usage where never anticipated.

Traffic congestion hasn't recently been assessed, with BX120 building 340 houses, it will be gridlock. The roads are unsuitable to cope with the increased cars. BX116 can accommodate some houses, but not 160. Meads Road is not big enough to cope with extra traffic and is effectively a one way road with the parked cars. Maple Walk and Avenue has no pavements and will became a dangerous rat run. Residents should not have additional maintenance costs. Flooding is another worry - below sea level. The surgery and school is full.

This Area has a high water table. There are implications on upsetting this environment on the surrounding properties including the golf club. This golf club has invested heavily on drainage funded by its members and is struggling to ensure viability as a playable club.
Spindlewood Drive entrance will see lorries coming to & from Little Common roundabout, turning into Meads Road being "single lane" due to parked cars. This will be dangerous with traffic backing to the roundabout.
The entrance should be on the North side where there is already an entrance to the caravan park.

The Spindlewood Drive site should NOT be considered for development for several reasons a) brownfield sites should be considered first b) there is totally unsuitable access via narrow roads (Meads Rd, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk), these roads will not cope with increased traffic; are not suitable for very heavy vehicles. c) previous traffic surveys have already stated that congestion around Little Common roundabout; along Barnhorn Road are already close to maximum capacity, as is air pollution d) housing density too high for the area. BX124 and BX101 should be more suitable; considered first.

Too much traffic and air pollution already in this locality, see recent figures in public domain of 900 movements per hour on A259, this was est for 2028! Cooden Sea & Meads Roads will not cope with additional volumes of traffic! Proposals are too high density to fit in with existing homes. Wildlife habitats would be lost! Quality of life would be ruined! Suggest use site BX124 as more suitable! Bypass needed for Little Common via Lamb Inn to Ninfield Rd before any extra sites developed!

I do not agree with the requirements of Policy BEX9 because the local infrastructure is totally inadequate. The local roads, Meads Road, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are not suitable for increased traffic flow which would inevitably result from any development at Spindlewood.
My reason for commenting is that I live in the narrow part of Maple Walk (North) an unadopted, narrow stretch of road which is a continuation of the concrete-based Meads Road. Both of which are unsuitable for an increase in traffic flow from any new development of Spindlewood.
There are more suitable sites to build houses.

I agree there needs to be more housing, but it all needs to be affordable and include housing available for rent, preferably social housing. The priority for this development needs to be brownfield sites, rather than destroying the peace, beauty and environmental benefits of the countryside.
Proposed access down Spindlewood Drive is wholly inappropriate. Cars often struggle to manoeuvre down Meads Road, let alone heavy construction traffic that will be needed for the development.
Little Common is already congested with long queues for the roundabout outside of rush hour. No development should take place that will attract even more traffic.

The requirements of BEX9 all fall in a greenfield site and Rother should concentrate on developing brownfield sites such as BX124 which has better infrastructure in terms of access roads and local facilities.Filling in greenfield sites in an already congested area in terms of traffic and local facilities should not be an option we need to preserve these areas in terms of open space and prevent overcrowding.

I disagree with the requirements of BEX9 because it will have a very bad effect on Little Common as a whole. There are better alternatives which would provide the necessary increase in housing without damaging the existing area

The roads leading to Spindlewood Drive would all become much more congested and dangerous and the already bad levels of congestion on Cooden Sea Road and the A259 would become much worse.

The number of additional houses would lead to great strain on such things as the Medical Centre which is already close to capacity. The same would apply to the local school.

The effect on local wildlife would be disastrous.

Air and Noise pollution would increase, causing increased levels of ill health and stress.

BEX9 should be removed from all future development consideration.