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

I strongly disagree with and oppose the requirements of BEX 9. There are far better alternative sites as described in my answer to Question number 27

The number of properties proposed will destroy the nature of the local community and the environment.

A large number of the existing properties in Spindlewood Drive and adjacent roads are attractive to retired people (including ourselves) who are looking to downsize and move to a suitable location. This accords entirely with Government policy which actively encourages such moves to free up larger properties for growing families. Developments such as BX116 could act as a deterrent to such moves.

The additional number of vehicles would be dangerous and cause chaos at peak times on the surrounding small roads, Cooden Sea Road, and the roundabout on the A259.

In addition to the traffic delays, the standing traffic will significantly increase air pollution in the whole area impacting on the health of residents. As there are many elderly residents the traffic dangers and air pollution issues are enhanced compared to other areas.

Access to the proposed site via Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive, particularly for heavy construction machinery is totally inappropriate. It would cause costly damage to the road surfaces as well as major inconvenience and distress to residents. Meads Road is simply not up to catering for such increased traffic.

If there is any development, access should be directly off the A259 Trunk Road, though congestion is already serious at peak times.
This was the stated policy of Rother District Council until very recently and there is no good reason for any change to this.

BEX 9 should be scrapped, or at the very least deferred for 10 years to assess the result of other developments.

Do not develop at Spindlewood as other sites more suitable sites such as BX124 option 2 and BX101 or at least delay until 2022 when the impact of Barnhorn development can be seen on A259

I consider that this development is entirely inappropriate for the site and that it is not required to meet the required number of residential units in the RDC overall DaSA Local Plan.

The Local Plan should take into account the number of 'windfall properties' per year that occur in the Bexhill area. Over a 10 year period these could easily more than match the number of properties proposed for this site.

I believe that all major residential development sites in the area should be situated so that it mitigates any significant increase in traffic over the road system in Rother and in particular the A259 where in the Little Common area the current traffic flow rates are already higher than recommended and this is before currently approved developments are built. The adoption of Option 3 for Policy BX124 would give more housing in much closer proximity to the proposed increases in business floorspace and give better road ac.cess

The housing in the area of the proposed site is almost exclusively low density detached properties. To erect 160 new properties on a site of this size would totally change the nature of the area; considerably increase the already unacceptably high traffic flow rates in the local area, in particular Meads Road, Cooden Sea Road, the Little Common roundabout and the A259; have a detrimental on the visual impact of the area; and affect the local wild life.

This site has very poor access, the end of Spindlewood Drive where it meets Meads Road would have to deal with approximately 400% more traffic as the number of houses it would be serving would go from 40 to 200. Meads Road is in poor condition and effectively single lane due to local parking requirements for residents and shop workers. The junction of Meads Road and Cooden Sea Road is often obstructed by parked cars and delivery lorries and can only just about deal with the present level of traffic.

The other road from the Spindlewood Drive - Meads Road junction, Maple Walk is unadopted and any increase in traffic on this road is totally unacceptable to its residents. A section of Maple Walk is very narrow has only a short length with pavements and is used by walkers and mobility scooters. In some parts of the road the only way to let vehicles past walkers is by going onto private property which works at present but does they do not have the permission to do this by the house owners. At the current usage level things just about work, any increase in traffic could lead to a serious accident.

The traffic note submitted by the would-be developer of the site is totally incredible, if anybody believes that 160 new residential units will have an 'immaterial' impact on the amount of traffic in the area and in particular Meads Road and Cooden Sea Road they are clearly very mistaken and the statistics have been manipulated to show the result that the developer wanted, not what will happen in practice.

I have concerns about the environmental impact of this proposed development. The Ecological Appraisal submitted by the developer cannot be fully commented on due to the redactions in it. I also noted that the company that wrote this report retained its copyright - why? There are no assurances that any recognition of the ecological sensitivity of the site and its surrounding area will be properly addressed, only recommendations. There is no statement that the proposed developer will take any of them on-board. Of particular note is that the proposed plan includes a play area in the middle of the central nature corridor, surely the two cannot be on the same piece of land. There is no mention of the Starling murmerations that regularly occur over this site.

In addition there should be a full water survey made to ensure that the current water levels are maintained both during and after any development of this type of site to ensure that there is no damage to the flora and fauna in the surrounding area.

Agree: Vital that Walking and Cycle Links are integrated with other Rights of Way, Shared Space paths, Quite Roads with 20mph limits, e.g.Meads Road, and are of common high quality standards, clearly signed that connect with other adjoining developments and projects. 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. Part of Cycle Route

I believe the development of the Spindlewood site is ill conceived because of the following reasons:
1. Inadequate road infrastructure
2. Increased traffic @A259 intersection in Little Common, compounded by the recent opening of the link road
3. Little Common school is at full capacity
4. Little Common surgery is close to full capacity
5. A by pass would eleviate heavy traffic through the village
6 alternative sites have been identified which would be more appropriate
7. A reduction of green space and erosion of the surrounding coutryside
8. Restricted access points at Spindlewood would create traffic
Build up and safety risk to pedestrians
9. With the pending development of Barnhorn Green so close by, services would be wholly inadequate
10. Further demands on utilities
11. Parking in Little Common is sparse and on road parking in all roads leading to the High Sreet at full capacity

The local infrastructure is currently not coping, the local school is overloaded, and Birkdale is now worse than the M25 at school start and finishing times. The traffic queues onto Little Common roundabout have grown substantially since the by-pass was opened. The local surgery I understand can accept a small level of additional patients at best
This is now, before the additional houses are built at Barnhorn Green, which will just add to the problems. Resolve infrastructure problems first.

This site is not suitable for development due to the very poor access and also there would be increased pollution and traffic and risk of accidents into an already very congested Little Common. There is not adequate infrastructure for more houses as the local school and doctors surgeries are full. There are more suitable areas around Bexhill for more housing and where additional schools and other community facilities could be built.
Also the A259 is struggling to cope with the increased traffic due to the Link Road and this will be made far worse with the proposed Barnhorn Road development

I do not consider this site as being appropriate for development for the following reasons
1. Inadequate vehicular access
2.Lack of existing infrastructure such as school or surgery etc
3.The A259 is struggling to cope with existing high levels of traffic as a result of the link road
4.The Barnhorn road development will increase the problem with 3 above
5.There are other more suitable sites in and around Bexhill that could cope with extra housing and where the necessary infrastructure could also be built

Bex 9 Object

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 off Spindlewood Drive

If it goes ahead I would urge you to only allocate the fewest possible dwellings in this Local Plan - and no to be revisited to add more in a future allocation.

Road
The A259 will not be free flowing and there area already huge problems already on this road. Extreme caution should be taken in crossing this road as the undulating contours and bends create "blindspots" and many vehicles do not keep to the speed limits.

Impact on Little Common
The roundabout will be very busy yet the shops will remain at risk- with parking problems.

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.

The development outlined in Policy BEX9 is totally unacceptable and unsuitable in its present format as it ignores a previous policy decision that any development along the A259 corridor should exit onto Barnhorn Road. Exiting onto Spindlewood would be a disaster for the residents of Spindlewood and Maple Walk and associated roads. If Policy BEX9 development is allowed to proceed there should be no exit onto Spindlewood Road.

Residents of Maple Walk, an unadopted road, have to contribute to the maintenance of their road.
A development of the size proposed in BEX9 would lead to a significant increase in traffic along Maple Road and an inevitable unacceptable financial burden to the residents.

No developments should take place in the Little Common area until a Little Common bypass project has been evaluated - linking the NBAR onto the A259 in the Hooe area.

BEX9 should be shelved until a proper study is made into -
1. Effects on the current road system - especially bearing in mind that some of these roads are unadopted. Especially Maple Walk (unadopted) which is only single file for a considerable length and also Meads Road, which because of on-street parking is effectively also single file for most of its length.
2. Current levels of air pollution along the A259 in the Little Common area and the potential for this development to significantly worsen the current levels.
3. A complete scientific study of the area in the BEX9 proposal and the inevitable damage that would occur to the existing wildlife.
4. A thorough investigation into the possible damage to the environment though pollution bearing in mind the sensitive areas of the nearby Pevensey Levels and their SSSI and RAMSAR statuses.
5. A full investigation into the existing resources and infrastructure available at Little Common - GP Surgery, Pharmacy, Schools etc should be made as to their ability to absorb the increased demand that would be created by such a large development as this proposal.

Building a housing estate on the field behind Spindlewood is totally unacceptable.

There are brownfield sites within Rother that are more suitable. Isn't Spindlewood
greenbelt? Aren't brownfield sites preferred over green? Doesn't it state in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paras 17, 89 and 111 that a brownfield site should always be preferred over green.

As mentioned in a previous question the field floods along the bottom, we've had hardly any rain so far this season and already it's boggy underfoot.

What about access? Presumably the builders lorries will drive down Meads Road which is itself unstable and all the other roads are unadopted and unsuitable for heavy vehicles.

Single access from Spindlewood is not sufficient.

If planning were to proceed it would have a huge impact on everyone living in the area, not just Meads Road but all the surrounding roads. When people realise that they can't get out at the Meads Road/Cooden Sea Road junction they will use the neighbouring roads of Maple Walk and Maple Avenue as a rat run to avoid the congestion.

The old Co-op site has plans for 9 residential flats, 11 residential parking spaces and 3 retail shops for which according GTA civils executive report deliveries will be made within the lay-by or within Meads Road. The lay-by is rarely empty so one must assume all deliveries will be made in Meads Road. The report finishes with 'Overall there are no unacceptable highway or transport impacts as a result of the proposed development'. Well the builders lorries wanting to access Spindlewood won't be able to get through for one! What with the delivery lorries, blue badge holders and the take a chancers all parking at the top of Meads Road sometimes you can barely get a car through let alone a lorry! Incidentally where will these lorries turn round having made their deliveries?

If planning should go ahead what safeguards are in place to ensure that the central
green is not developed.

Have all the old oak trees on the site had preservation orders put on them?

I object to Policy BEX9 (land off Spindlewood Drive). The policy should be amended to include a much smaller developable area and far fewer dwellings, with access off
Barnhorn road.

The infrastructure in Little Common is inadequate for development on the scale
proposed.

The proposed development is too dense and would be likely to exacerbate flooding in
the Cole Stream affecting the SSSI on the Pevensey Levels.

The proposed number of dwellings is also too large for access to be obtained from
Meads Road. The carriageway of Meads Road is only 5.4 metres wide at its northern
end between Meads Avenue and Cooden Sea road. Taking into account existing
residential and visitor parking the free road width is in many places reduced to
3.4 metres. Over the majority of Meads Road traffic has to adopt an informal alternate direction of traffic flow as the only way for traffic to pass. Even with parking completely banned on both sides of Meads Road, the width would be insufficient. The scale of the proposed development requires a direct vehicular access off the main road network which in this case can only be provided off Barnhorn Road. Barnhorn Road should be the principal access for vehicles, the access off Spindlewood Drive should be for pedestrians and cycles only.

In the Core Strategy Rother District Council also says that further development west of Little Common roundabout should have its principle access off Barnhorn Road.
The proposed access off Spindlewood Drive is inadequate and dangerous in that sight lines from this access would not be adequate. It is also highly unlikely that refuse vehicles in excess of 10 metres in length could safely use such an access.

If the principal highway access was from Spindlewood Drive there is a considerable risk that traffic from the development would seek to access the main road network using Maple Walk southwards as an alternative to Meads Road. Maple Walk to the south of Spindlewood Drive is extremely narrow with a roadway of no more than 3.4 metres total width and an informal alternate direction of traffic flow is the only way for traffic to pass. Also there is no footway and the roadway has to accommodate pedestrians as well as vehicles and this causes hazard to pedestrians.

In the Council's own words the land off Spindlewood Drive is one of two significant areas of residential expansion and is the second largest expansion in the Local Plan. As such the proposed Development would require a much more extensive Transport
Assessment than merely stating that according to the Local Highway authority the local roads could accept the traffic associated with the development.

A wide-ranging transport assessment including the effect on Cooden Sea Road and its feeder roads and the effect on Little Common roundabout and Barnhorn Road should be included. Barnhorn Road carries the A259 Truck road traffic. The Bexhill to Hastings Link Road has already caused a huge increase in traffic onto the Little Common roundabout and there is considerable congestion there with queues of more than 1 Km in peak hours. This is already occurring in 2016/17 before the new housing at Barnhorn Green or Spindlewood Drive is developed.

It is quite clear that irrespective of the Spindlewood drive development a Little Common bypass is necessary. Infrastructure should proceed in step with development.

Little Common and Cooden can't sustain the amount of residents, cars etc., that this proposed development would bring. Schools, doctors are oversubscribed and proposed traffic would be horrendous. This proposal development of Mead Road would be horrendous for residents.

I am horrified by the development proposal plan BEX9/BEX116. This would be completely unsatisfactory with a blatant disregard for the environment and the health and wellbeing of the local community and expanding area.

Housing targets are likely to be met by existing development plans in the area, already at an advanced stage of development which possibly have the capacity for further properties.

There is already a considerable amount of congestion from Cooden Sea Road into Meads Road on into Maple Walk which is very cluttered with single file for most of the route.

How would residents be recompensed for further damage to an already poor road surface? Has the issue of unadopted roads been addressed?

I also feel that Rother District council are failing to acknowledge the huge impact that the increased traffic demands would have on the wellbeing of the local residents, wildlife, environment and community at large.

My husband and I moved into our home in November, searches failed to pick up on the planning proposals, indeed we would not have moved here if the Council had been clear and frank regarding their proposals.

I am hoping that sense will prevail and the lack of infrastructure and the terrible damage this proposal would to the community and its residents is inconceivable.

There are more suitable sites, a brownfield site should always be considered over a Greenfield site as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore BX124 option 2 and BX101 should be preferred options.

BX116 does not support the suitable access for vehicles, especially along Meads Avenue, Maple Walk which are unadopted roads.

I am horrified to hear that there are proposed plans to develop housing in the Spindlewood Drive area!

The traffic in the Little Common area is already badly managed. The central island is inadequate for the constant heavy traffic through the village and other roads too narrow and congested. The roads within the village are in a bad state of repair due to heavy traffic.

How then will additional traffic ("works") and thereafter the increased traffic from the homes developed on Spindlewood Drive be managed? I foresee many more accidents and fatalities in the future unfortunately. Already there is a problem with parking in the village and this will only get much worse. We will see small businesses suffer which will in turn affect the community.

The area has always attracted "retirees" because of its "village community". I believe the elderly inhabitants will be intimidated by the heavily increased traffic. Car drivers and pedestrians alike.

Bexhill needs the "grey" pound, but any more proposed developments in the Little Common Area will see "retirees" going elsewhere.

Little Common is sincerely hoping that Barnhorn development will not go ahead - but Spindlewood Drive as well? Please reconsider.

Currently, traffic handling in Little Common is a major concern relating to the diverse issues of road safety for road users and pedestrians, excessive traffic volumes, small business viability, parking and environmental pollution.
The A259 is the main artery running through Little Common failing to effectively handle the high volume of traffic between the east and west conurbations of the south coast of England. The layout of Little Common and its surrounds was never developed to cater for the current demand let alone the dramatic increases that would ensue from the Spindlewood and Barnhorn developments.
Whatever traffic management "solutions" are envisaged to counter these issues, the realities are that road accidents and fatalities will increase, traffic flow will descend into gridlock, parking will be painfully inadequate with the consequent disastrous effects on local business. Little Common has an ageing population that in many cases means that many older people do not cope well with high volume traffic conditions as pedestrians or motorists.
Little Common will not be improved in any sense by the proposed developments and consequently the current desirability of living in this area will dramatically decline and property values will plummet. Let's not destroy a little jewel I the crown that is Rother.

Site BX116 (Spindlewood Drive)

Infrastructure

Further to receiving details of your proposed building of many houses off Spindlewood Drive in
Little Common, I would ask you to read through my following comments:-

1. The position of this site and access to it are totally unacceptable both to residents and visitors
to Little Common. The access road via Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive is very narrow
causing a bottleneck for traffic in and out of Meads Road even now before building
commences. Once builders' lorries, builders and all the people connected with so many
houses being built as well as the new residents in the houses it will become a great deal worse
causing severe delays. It has always been a fairly quiet road and is used by children and
adults alike. It would seem there is no other access from Little Common apart from people
using Maple Avenue and Maple Walk from the other side of Spindlewood Drive where the road
in Maple Walk behind Hazelwood Close is extremely narrow.

2. As a resident of Maple Avenue, residents are extremely concerned that our road will become
a 'rat run' for traffic trying to avoid Meads Road. Maple Avenue and Maple Walk are both
unadopted roads which are totally unsuitable for extra traffic. They both have residents
associations who keep them in good order and have to pay for all maintenance and regular
resurfacing. However, it is impossible to keep them up to Council standards which would be
prohibitively expensive for residents and would be vital should such a development take place.

3. The local school for Little Common, Little Common Primary School, is already operating with
far more children than it was originally built for. Dreadful access to the school off Cooden Sea
Road during term time and at various times of the day is nothing less than appallingly dangerous.
Extra local children could not be safely accommodated. This needs to be urgently investigated
with or without the building of more houses.

4. Drainage on Site 116 is extremely poor and residents backing on to the site already suffer from
exceedingly wet gardens. This would need to be urgently reviewed before building could
commence.
5. Other sites which have applied for planning permission under the Government edict that Bexhill
should build over 3,000 new homes would be far more suitable and must be considered before Site
116 (Spindlewood Drive). The Northeye site is already a brownfield site so would immediately
come to mind ahead of sites such as Site 116 which is most certainly a 'greenfield' site which helps
lend Little Common its peaceful and rural reputation. It is most definitely not a suitable place for
building the proposed number of houses. I understand that a further site is under consideration off
the new bypass which will eventually run to the A21 . There is ample room for new schools and all
other facilities there as well as large scale housing well away from alt the other problems which
already exist in Little Common.

I would urge you please to consider my comments.

BEX116 is the least appropriate of all the sites. Brownfield options and infill developments (where previous commercial and residential properties are converted to multi-occupancy) should take priority.

Any decision to develop BX116 (land adjoining Spindlewood Drive/Maple Walk) should be postponed for a minimum of 5 years whilst alternatives are investigated further.

There is no need to take tracts of land out of the green belt to solve the housing crisis. The Council should have looked at every alternative first.
Our green belt is sacrosanct. To destroy it would be a very poor solution betraying our heritage.

The proposed access point via Spindlewood Drive to Meads Road through an existing field gate is totally inappropriate. Furthermore the roads adjoining this pint namely Meads Road and Maple Walk South are already overused for the nature of the roads.

Meads Road is a narrow road which at present normally has only one lane clear for transiting traffic. Its junction with Cooden Sea Road is often seriously congested by:

* traffic backed up from the Little Common roundabout
* cars and lorries trying to enter/exit the parking at the local Tesco
* lorries parked in the area while delivering goods to Tesco and other shops etc.
* traffic halted by the two pedestrian crossings.

This combination already regularly causes grid lock within the village area which the traffic for an additional 250 houses will make even more intolerable.

Maple Walk South is a one track road without a pedestrian pavement and is already very dangerous for the hard of hearing, the partially sighted and school children going to/from school, the village centre and the Cooden Beach station area let alone the more able bodied.

Maple Walk South is hardly wide enough for two cars to pass in parts and is reduced to a single track road over much of its length. It is a private/unadopted road maintained at the expense of the frontagers. Both its construction and maintenance have been based on servicing the very low number of adjacent houses - not a large housing estate.

Maple Walk south is already a "rat run" overused by cars, vans and lorries driving at excessive speeds while visiting local properties, the village and beyond. The further increase in traffic that will result from all vehicles travelling to and from the proposed development via Cooden Sea Road and Bexhill town, the local beach and railway station will make this one track narrow road without a pavement even more hazardous. Furthermore the increased traffic usage will also put an unacceptable additional burden on the frontagers in terms of increased road maintenance costs.

Regardless of what happens concerning the proposed development MapIe Walk South should be made be a cul de sac which has its access/egress via Maple Walk, Maple Avenue
and CIavering WaIk.

Any road links from any Spindlewood development should have access road(s) to Barnhorn Road and only Barnhorn Road. An access road that involves the use of Spindlewood Drive, Meads Road, Maple Walk South, Maple Walk or Maple Avenue in any way should not be considered under any circumstances.

Maple Walk South leads into Maple Walk and Maple Avenue which are also both private unadopted roads maintained by the frontagers and are therefore of limited width and of a lesser standard of construction compared to those of standard roads. Both are also already a 'rat run' overused by cars, vans and lorries driving at excessive speeds while visiting local properties, the village and beyond. The further increase in traffic that will result from all vehicles travelling to and from the proposed development via Cooden Sea Road and Bexhill town, the local beach and the railway station will make these roads without a pavements even more
hazardous. Furthermore their increased traffic usage will also put an unacceptable additional burden on the frontagers in terms of increased road maintenance costs as these roads were originally built to a standard appropriate to serving the limited number of properties along them not an extra 160 houses.

Both these very dangerous walks for pedestrians should immediately and regardless of the proposed development be made part of a cul de sac which has its access/egress via Cooden Sea road and Clavering Walk.

Environment

The pleasant village nature of Littte Common and its environs has suffered already from increased traffic with the roundabout on the A259 now regularly having; traffic queuing simultaneously on three of its main connecting roads i.e. traffic on the:

- Bamhom Road daily extends back to the beginning of the 40MPH speed restriction
and on numerous occasions to the Bexhill Service Station at the junction of Coneybrook Lane*.
- Little Common Road daily extends back to its junction with Broad Oak*.
*In both cases these have become worse since the opening of the link rood.
- Cooden Sea Road daily extends back to the pedestrian crossing in the village.

In addition Birkdale also has a level of traffic usage that causes daily grid lock and lorries delivering to the Tesco convenience store and other shops daily causes traffic jams in the heart of village.

These traffic jams all regularly disrupt bus services etc.

The length of traffic tailbacks on the A239 roundabout are even longer during the holiday months and particularly over the bank holiday periods etc.

When assessing the current traffic queuing on the A259 at the Little Common roundabout it should be noted that this is currently significantly alleviated by traffic using Sluice Lane and Herbrand Walk both narrow lanes that follow the coast between the A271/A259 Pevensey Bypass roundabout and Cooden Beach Railway Station. During peak daily travelling times this route has a constant flow of traffic in both directions that is avoiding the major congestion at the Little Common roundabout.

The creation of additional housing in the area will undoubtedly only worsen the current traffic congestion at the Little common roundabout with longer and more frequent and even worse vehicle congestion occurring. This traffic congestion will inevitably and undoubtedly cause increased pollution in the area.


The infrastructure servicing Little Common and immediate neighbourhoods is already
inadequate with congested roads and limited vehicle parking facilities, schooling, medical facilities, shops and utilities that were originally created to serve a much smaller level of demand and housing density than now let alone the future. Imposing the additional requirements resulting from another 160 properties would be irresponsible.

Utilities

The utilities serving the Little Common area i.e. water, sewage and flood prevention etc. were all created for a much lower usage level than currently exists and are unlikely to cope with the requirements of two significant new housing developments. In particular water and sewage services and flood prevention in the Spindlewood area are hardly coping with existing demand and will not be able to cope with the demand of a further 160 houses.

The infra-structure of the area in terms of roads, schools, shops, parking, medical facilities (particularly local doctor's surgery), and transport links are all already inadequate for the current Population 'let alone a population increase of at least 650 resulting from the building of an additional 160 houses.

The roadway access in particular for this proposed Spindlewood development is
inappropriate in that it would result in a dramatic increase in traffic along local unadopted roads These have been paid for and maintained at the cost of the frontagers. These unadopted roads were originally constructed to a standard required to service the limited number of properties along these roads and not to service a development of 160 houses and the resulting vehicle road usage at Spindlewood.

Housing Density.

The 160 houses in the Spindlewood proposal is excessive and disproportionate to the housing density levels in the adjacent roads and wider area. Furthermore their design and style are out of keeping with those in the surrounding area. This combination will change the mature of the area from a nicely balanced housing area into a jumble of uncoordinated mixture of property densities, sizes and styles.

Air Pollution

Increasing traffic congestion particularly on the Barnhorn Road, Little Common Road and in the Little Common village centre will all result in dramatic increase in pollution levels.

Residential Housing Targets.

With reference to housing targets and time scales the views of local residents should be the overriding priority rather than following the dictates of central government. Consequently a moratorium for at least 10 years should be imposed on the building of any type on the Spindlewood site. The achievement of current targets should be met by developing sites BX120 (Barnhorn Green), BX124 (North Bexhill Access Road and BX101 (North Eye) and other unidentified ad hoc commissions. This would mean no decision is necessary on the Spindlewood
site at this stage if ever particularly if the number of houses likely to be purchased for holiday homes and/or rental property is taken into account. Both hardly reasons for ruining the environment of the Spindlewood and wider Little Common community.

Aesthetics

Developing Spindlewood would destroy one of the few remaining traditional type of
aesthetic residential areas in the Rother District catchment.

The additional traffic along Maple Walk South, Maple Walk, Little Twitten, Maple Avenue, will turn these currently unadopted roads from routes that are used in the main by those residing in the immediate area to mini super highways with traffic from 160 extra houses using them for travelling to and from the:-

- South area of Little Common doctors surgery and shops and then onward via Birkdale to The Hastings-Direct area, the police station and adjacent commercial sites, and then to the Bexhill town centre and railway station and then again onward to Ravenside and Hastings.

- Cooden Beach Station, Cooden Beach Hotel and The Cooden Beach shore and onward to the Bexhill town centre, the Bexhill promenade and then further onward to Ravenside and Hastings.

Maple Walk, Little Twitted and Maple Avenue are all unadopted roads and as
Such are maintained at the of cost the frontagers and as such were originally constructed to a standard commensurate and subsequently maintained for the traffic from the limited number Of properties along the roads and not for the use of vehicles from 160 additional properties. In Addition Maple Walk South 'is very narrow and along most of its distant a single track "road".
Furthermore, Maple Walk South, Maple Walk, Little Twitten and Maple Avenue do not have any separation for pedestrians and vehicles, (in other words no pavements).

Conservation

Spindlewood and the adjacent t area of Cooden and the west of Little Common are semi-rural areas consisting of a good balance of housing types, woodland and open common type and the building of another 160 houses will turn it into another area of urban sprawl. This will not only be to the detriment of the human inhabitants but also specific wildlife (badgers, foxes etc.) and also the general fauna and flora of the area. The human inhabitants of the area have chosen the area and paid substantially above the local property prices for this privilege which will be
destroyed by the unnecessary development of 160 houses at this location rather than elsewhere.

Q35 SPINDLEWOOD DRIVE POLICY BEX9 PROPOSAL RESPONSE

I am opposed to the entire proposed development BX116 of Policy BEX9 and request that it be removed from the list of Preferred Sites and not to be considered for any future development as part of the second DaSA Consultation Process.

Surplus to requirements:

I feel that RDC can easily fulfil its development targets without using the Spindlewood Drive proposed site, particularly in light of the capacity of other proposed sites which can provide greater capacity, not only for housing but also for a supporting infrastructure of an appropriate road system, schools, doctors' surgeries, available jobs', leisure facilities etc.

Detrimental impact on Little Common, Cooden, and west Bexhill:

My husband and I moved to Cooden fairly recently and we are surprised to find that it is difficult To get into doctors' surgeries, schools, etc. as they are over-subscribed already. The traffic is Much busier than expected around the Little Common roundabout and A259, and to park near the village shopping area is very difficult indeed - the car park is not user-friendly and should be free of charge. Residents are not using it but are parking on the approach road and yellow line. Lt is dangerous around the little Tesco/Meads Road area and very unpleasant to
negotiate. A development of properties in the Spindlewood Drive area will be completely out of character with the ambience of this special corner Of Bexhill with traditional values particularly if the residents of this Proposed site decide to use rat runs down Maple Walk and Maple Avenue, which at the moment are unadopted roads, which are kept in good repair by a residents "fund".

Windfall properties should be taken into account:

The figure, of 3100 homes target figure for Bexhill should take into account windfall properties of a historical number of approximately 70 small sites per annum achieved since 2006 and there is no reason why this situation will into continue for another ten years. At least 50 windfalls per annum could be incorporated in the DaSA process and projected housing completions.

Spindlewood Drive development is not necessary:

This development is not necessary to meet the RDC requirements to meet targets. Other developments are already at advanced planning stages or now under consideration in the DaSA which likely enable RDC to exceed its development targets without implementing the use of BEX9/BEX116, especially if windfalls are taken into account.

A259 is unsuitable for the present traffic levels let alone an expected increase with the Barnhorn development, as residents on this new site will need to get in their cars to take children to school, visits to doctor's surgeries, and jobs, all of which will in the majority be out of the Little Common area, as capacity if full already.

My Replies to Question 27 and 29 apply equally to Question 35: I give below a summary:
Insufficient Infrastructure:
Unsuitable Access
Rat Runs through Maple Walk and Maple Avenue
Congestion on A259
More suitable Sites such as the NBAR surrounds
"By Pass' for Little Common
Option 3 of Pol. BEX3 Possibilities
Air and Noise Pollution
Flood Analysis
Disruption to Wild Life

It really seems unnecessary to develop an existing residential hub when there are other readily suitable sites. Spindlewood Drive is a greenfield site. The National Planning Policy Framework recommends that the possibility of developing the Spindlewood site should be deferred until at least 2022. The other sites (BX124 and BX101) are brownfield sites which suggests that they have already undergone some degree of development thereby reducing urban sprawl and possibly improving the urban environment.

On the matter of conservation - the Spindlewood Drive proposal includes a field adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. This site is host to a great variety of wildlife including Great Crested Newts which are a protected species. A variety of birds, bats and badgers inhabit this very special area which provides peace and quiet for wildlife and for the residents who specifically chose this area (and paid more than the local average housing costs), for its unique aesthetic appeal. Developing Spindlewood would be detrimental to this precious environment.

This is my objection in respect of the Rother District Council's Proposal for the above
land to be developed with houses as per a proposed layout prepared by Morgan Cam.

This is my opinion as a retired Chartered Surveyor who has had a lifetime of experience in respect of development schemes. and have resided in the locality since 1960. Whilst I appreciate the fact that Central Government has given the Rather D.C. targets for housing development of "land suitable in all respects". This does not apply to Spindlewood; and no doubt others on the Bexhill West Housing Options Map. I would say that the Rother D.C. obtained approval quite wrongly for the land on the north infrastructure to be in place which was not a condition of the approval given.

Spindlewood forms part of the Little Common Village and cannot cope with its essential needs etc.. This is my case against the land off Spindlewood Drive being used and would also apply to other sites on your Bexhill West Housing Options Map.

1. A259 needs to be diverted to north of the village at the east end of the Marsh Road. Ten years or so ago a scheme for a bypass for the whole of Bexhill and Hastings was prepared and for financial reasons only the Labour Government rejected the scheme that had been prepared. A new road could now could meet up with the new Link Road.
2. Need for another school and another surgery.
3. The access to the site is totally unacceptable as shown on Architects plan. (from NW)
4. Pollution levels in Little Common would be increased to an excessive level.
5. Parking at the present time is totally inadequate and sites on the RDC options would, if developed, generate an additional of at least 1000 cars.
6. This is low lying ground and a report from a Water Board Engineer could well express concerns over the suitability of the site for housing.
7. As far as is now possible I and many others prefer the long established village of Little Common to remain. There are other sites for the global target to be met.
Please see my answer to Question 27.

In the light of the above advice the Spindlewood Drive extension should be removed from the proposed schemes for housing development in Little Common.
It seems to me that the Council's Service Manager has not taken adequate regard to Points 1 to 6 above. Also that the Council has not received professional advice from a member of the Town Planning Institute or Chartered Surveyor.

We wish to lodge an objection to the vast proposed development BX116, the field abutting Spindlewood Drive and parts of Maple Walk. We live in an unadopted road which we have to pay to maintain. The dramatic increase in traffic would cause more wear and tear than present, also change the dynamics of the village with noise and pollution from cars etc. It is also not easy to get a doctor's appointment; the increase in people would make it more difficult.

I do not agree with Policy BEX9 (land off Spindlewood Drive) on the following grounds. The policy should be amended to include a much smaller developable area and far fewer dwellings, with access off Barnhorn road.

The physical and social infrastructure in Little Common is not adequate to accept development on the scale proposed.

The proposed development is too dense and would put a greatly increased burden on the surface water drainage system by virtue of the roofs, roadways and hard standing areas, increasing the immediacy of run-off at times of high rainfall and exacerbating flooding in the Cole Stream basin affecting existing properties in Hazelwood Close and Old Harrier Kennels as well as potentially the SSSI and Ramsar Site on the Pevensey Levels. It would not be possible to contain the peak run-off rates to anything like the existing site run-off rate of the present field which acts as a 'sponge'. At least three quarters of the site drains naturally through ground water percolation to the Cole Stream.

The proposed number of dwellings is also too large for highway access to be obtained from Meads Road which has insufficient width for additional two-way traffic taking account of the existing residential and visitor parking and the number of existing properties served. The carriageway of Meads Road is only 5.4 metres wide for a substantial length at its northern end between Meads Avenue and Cooden Sea Road. Taking into account existing residential and visitor parking the free road width is in many places reduced to 3.4 metres. Meads Road is presently providing a principal link to the local shopping centre and main road network for some 190 houses, several of them in multiple occupation on a net width of 3.4 metres. Over the majority of Meads Road the existing traffic has to adopt an informal alternate direction of traffic flow as the only way for traffic to pass.

If the BEX9 development is allowed to proceed in effect Meads Road would become the Residential Distributer road for the development. Such a road would normally be required a minimum width of 6 metres and preferably 6.2 metres width. Several Highway Authorities in England require major access roads for development to be between 6 metres and 6.75 metres wide. Meads road is completely built up on both sides and the opportunity for any widening does not exist. Even with parking completely banned on both sides of Meads Road the width would be insufficient.

The junction of Meads Road and Cooden Sea Road is inadequate for the additional traffic from the development proposed.

The scale of the proposed development requires a direct vehicular access off the main road network which in this case can only be provided off Barnhorn Road. Barnhorn Road should be the principal access for all vehicles with the access off Spindlewood Drive for pedestrians and cycles only.

In the Core Strategy Rother District Council also says that Further development west of Little Common roundabout should have its access off Barnhorn Road.

The Bexhill to Hastings Link Road has drawn a considerable increase in traffic onto the Little Common Roundabout. Traffic from Cooden Sea Road at Little Common Roundabout was expected to average 10,000 vehicles per day in 2010 according to ESCC traffic modelling. Traffic on Barnhorn road was expected to be 22, 600 per day in the same model. This has already been exceeded. At flows above 13,000 vehicles per day a ghost island is required to allow right turning traffic to wait for a gap in the oncoming flow without delaying the traffic behind but there is no opportunity for this to be provided at Meads Road.

Irrespective of what the landowner's surveyor may have persuaded someone in the Highway Authority of, the proposed access off Spindlewood Drive is inadequate and dangerous in that sight lines from this access would not be adequate particularly to the north where the pumping station fence comes right to the back of the footway but also towards Meads Road. The addition of substantial numbers of large flat-bed lorries delivering all sorts of building equipment and materials to the site would be impossible to manage on Meads road. It is also highly unlikely that refuse vehicles in excess of 10 metres in length could safely use such an access.

If the principal highway access was from Spindlewood Drive there is a considerable risk that traffic from the development would seek to access the main road network using Maple Walk southwards as an alternative to Meads Road.

Maple Walk to the south of Spindlewood Drive is extremely narrow between the property Carisbrooke on Maple Walk and Little Twitten a distance of more than 150 metres over which the roadway is not more than 3.4 metres total width and an informal alternate direction of traffic flow is the only way for traffic to pass. In this section of Maple Walk there is no footway and the roadway has to accommodate pedestrian traffic as well as vehicle and this causes hazard to pedestrians many of whom are elderly and also children.

In the 2005 Inspectors Report on the Public Inquiry into the Local Plan and the development of the Old Harrier Kennels site to the west of Maple Walk, the Inspector considered that "20 or more dwellings would generate an amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Maple Walk (the narrow section) such as to necessitate significant improvements to that private road". The same thing
applies today with respect to BEX9 to the west of Maple Walk.

I think East Sussex County Council Highways Department were trivialising these issues when they stated to the developer that Meads road could accommodate the traffic from the development.

Even with access for this development directly off Barnhorn Road the Local Planning Authority must obtain a full Construction Management Plan from the developers and enforce this management plan. The Management plan should stipulate that all deliveries should be from Barnhorn Road during restricted hours only. The power to require a Construction Management Plan is set out in Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Construction Management Plan may contain inter alia specifications on:

* Measures to mitigate the effect of a development on its surroundings;
* Site access and parking of delivery vehicles and loading of Waste disposal vehicles;
* The size of vehicles to be used for deliveries etc;
* The routes to be used for heavy vehicles accessing the site;
* The locations and access of any cranes;
* The storage of materials and waste off the surrounding roads;
* Off road parking arrangements for staff and sub-contractors working on the site
* Specify the hours when construction vehicles may arrive and depart;
* Noise and air pollution abatement measures;
* Control of highway works connected with the site development, such as manholes etc;
* Making good any damage to surrounding roads caused by heavy construction traffic.

In the Council's own words the land off Spindlewood drive is one of two significant areas of residential expansion and is the second largest expansion in the Local Plan.

As such the proposed Development would require a much more extensive Transport Assessment than merely stating that according to the Local Highway authority the local roads could accept the traffic associated with the development. The Transport Assessment would need to be done on a much more robust basis than merely an out of date April 2015 traffic count at Little Common roundabout, before the Link road was complete and open. The opening of the Bexhill to Hastings link road did not occur until December 2015. A wide-ranging transport assessment including the effect on Cooden Sea Road and its feeder roads and the effect on Little Common roundabout and Barnhorn Road should be included. Barnhorn Road carries the A259 Trunk road traffic.

The assessment by EXIGO using ARCADY shows that there would be considerable congestion at Little Common roundabout with queues of more than 1 Km in peak hours. This is already occurring in 2016/2017 before the new housing at Barnhorn Green or Spindlewood Drive is developed. To plan for such a congested junction on a Trunk Road would be an abrogation of the Planning Authority's duty. The East Sussex SATURN model appears to "wish the excess traffic away' on to other
non-defined but less suitable routes.

It is quite clear that irrespective of the Spindlewood drive development a Little Common bypass is necessary to take traffic off the A259 west of Northeye and join up with the Ninfield road in the general vicinity of Lunsford Cross and thence to the NBAR.

Infrastructure should proceed in step with development. Any amount of housing on the Spindlewood Drive site should not be occupied until a Little Common bypass is open to traffic. This would be commensurate with the provisions of conditions proposed for BEX3 in (xi) on page 149 of the Council's present document.

I do not believe it is for me to suggest alternative locations for Development. That is for Rother District Planners to come up with sensible solutions that can stand testing at Public hearings and Inquiry.

I do not agree with this requirement. This site should not be developed as there are other more suitable sites including BX124 Option 2 and BX101 (a brownfield site that should be preferred over a greenfield site such as Spindlewood.

Q35 SPINDLEWOOD DRIVE POLICY BEX9 PROPOSAL RESPONSE

I am opposed to the entire proposed development BX116 of Policy BEX9 and request that it be removed from the list of Preferred Sites and not to be considered for any future development as part of the second DaSA Consultation Process.

Surplus to requirements:

I feel that RDC can easily fulfil its development targets without using the Spindlewood Drive proposed site, particularly in light of the capacity of other proposed sites which can provide greater capacity, not only for housing but also for a supporting infrastructure of an appropriate road system, schools, doctors' surgeries, available jobs', leisure facilities etc.

Detrimental impact on Little Common, Cooden, and west Bexhill:

My husband and I moved to Cooden fairly recently and we are surprised to find that it is difficult To get into doctors' surgeries, schools, etc. as they are over-subscribed already. The traffic is Much busier than expected around the Little Common roundabout and A259, and to park near the village shopping area is very difficult indeed - the car park is not user-friendly and should be free of charge. Residents are not using it but are parking on the approach road and yellow line. Lt is dangerous around the little Tesco/Meads Road area and very unpleasant to
negotiate. A development of properties in the Spindlewood Drive area will be completely out of character with the ambience of this special corner Of Bexhill with traditional values particularly if the residents of this Proposed site decide to use rat runs down Maple Walk and Maple Avenue, which at the moment are unadopted roads, which are kept in good repair by a residents "fund".

Windfall properties should be taken into account:

The figure, of 3100 homes target figure for Bexhill should take into account windfall properties of a historical number of approximately 70 small sites per annum achieved since 2006 and there is no reason why this situation will into continue for another ten years. At least 50 windfalls per annum could be incorporated in the DaSA process and projected housing completions.

Spindlewood Drive development is not necessary:

This development is not necessary to meet the RDC requirements to meet targets. Other developments are already at advanced planning stages or now under consideration in the DaSA which likely enable RDC to exceed its development targets without implementing the use of BEX9/BEX116, especially if windfalls are taken into account.

A259 is unsuitable for the present traffic levels let alone an expected increase with the Barnhorn development, as residents on this new site will need to get in their cars to take children to school, visits to doctor's surgeries, and jobs, all of which will in the majority be out of the Little Common area, as capacity if full already.

My Replies to Question 27 and 29 apply equally to Question 35: I give below a summary:
Insufficient Infrastructure:
Unsuitable Access
Rat Runs through Maple Walk and Maple Avenue
Congestion on A259
More suitable Sites such as the NBAR surrounds
"By Pass' for Little Common
Option 3 of Pol. BEX3 Possibilities
Air and Noise Pollution
Flood Analysis
Disruption to Wild Life

The proposed access point via Spindlewood Drive to Meads Road through an existing field gate is totally inappropriate. Furthermore the roads adjoining this pint namely Meads Road and Maple Walk South are already overused for the nature of the roads.

Meads Road is a narrow road which at present normally has only one lane clear for transiting traffic. Its junction with Cooden Sea Road is often seriously congested by:

* traffic backed up from the Little Common roundabout
* cars and lorries trying to enter/exit the parking at the local Tesco
* lorries parked in the area while delivering goods to Tesco and other shops etc.
* traffic halted by the two pedestrian crossings.

This combination already regularly causes grid lock within the village area which the traffic for an additional 250 houses will make even more intolerable.

Maple Walk South is a one track road without a pedestrian pavement and is already very dangerous for the hard of hearing, the partially sighted and school children going to/from school, the village centre and the Cooden Beach station area let alone the more able bodied.

Maple Walk South is hardly wide enough for two cars to pass in parts and is reduced to a single track road over much of its length. It is a private/unadopted road maintained at the expense of the frontagers. Both its construction and maintenance have been based on servicing the very low number of adjacent houses - not a large housing estate.

Maple Walk south is already a "rat run" overused by cars, vans and lorries driving at excessive speeds while visiting local properties, the village and beyond. The further increase in traffic that will result from all vehicles travelling to and from the proposed development via Cooden Sea Road and Bexhill town, the local beach and railway station will make this one track narrow road without a pavement even more hazardous. Furthermore the increased traffic usage will also put an unacceptable additional burden on the frontagers in terms of increased road maintenance costs.

Regardless of what happens concerning the proposed development MapIe Walk South should be made be a cul de sac which has its access/egress via Maple Walk, Maple Avenue
and CIavering WaIk.

Any road links from any Spindlewood development should have access road(s) to Barnhorn Road and only Barnhorn Road. An access road that involves the use of Spindlewood Drive, Meads Road, Maple Walk South, Maple Walk or Maple Avenue in any way should not be considered under any circumstances.

Maple Walk South leads into Maple Walk and Maple Avenue which are also both private unadopted roads maintained by the frontagers and are therefore of limited width and of a lesser standard of construction compared to those of standard roads. Both are also already a 'rat run' overused by cars, vans and lorries driving at excessive speeds while visiting local properties, the village and beyond. The further increase in traffic that will result from all vehicles travelling to and from the proposed development via Cooden Sea Road and Bexhill town, the local beach and the railway station will make these roads without a pavements even more
hazardous. Furthermore their increased traffic usage will also put an unacceptable additional burden on the frontagers in terms of increased road maintenance costs as these roads were originally built to a standard appropriate to serving the limited number of properties along them not an extra 160 houses.

Both these very dangerous walks for pedestrians should immediately and regardless of the proposed development be made part of a cul de sac which has its access/egress via Cooden Sea road and Clavering Walk.

Environment

The pleasant village nature of Littte Common and its environs has suffered already from increased traffic with the roundabout on the A259 now regularly having; traffic queuing simultaneously on three of its main connecting roads i.e. traffic on the:

- Bamhom Road daily extends back to the beginning of the 40MPH speed restriction
and on numerous occasions to the Bexhill Service Station at the junction of Coneybrook Lane*.
- Little Common Road daily extends back to its junction with Broad Oak*.
*In both cases these have become worse since the opening of the link rood.
- Cooden Sea Road daily extends back to the pedestrian crossing in the village.

In addition Birkdale also has a level of traffic usage that causes daily grid lock and lorries delivering to the Tesco convenience store and other shops daily causes traffic jams in the heart of village.

These traffic jams all regularly disrupt bus services etc.

The length of traffic tailbacks on the A239 roundabout are even longer during the holiday months and particularly over the bank holiday periods etc.

When assessing the current traffic queuing on the A259 at the Little Common roundabout it should be noted that this is currently significantly alleviated by traffic using Sluice Lane and Herbrand Walk both narrow lanes that follow the coast between the A271/A259 Pevensey Bypass roundabout and Cooden Beach Railway Station. During peak daily travelling times this route has a constant flow of traffic in both directions that is avoiding the major congestion at the Little Common roundabout.

The creation of additional housing in the area will undoubtedly only worsen the current traffic congestion at the Little common roundabout with longer and more frequent and even worse vehicle congestion occurring. This traffic congestion will inevitably and undoubtedly cause increased pollution in the area.


The infrastructure servicing Little Common and immediate neighbourhoods is already
inadequate with congested roads and limited vehicle parking facilities, schooling, medical facilities, shops and utilities that were originally created to serve a much smaller level of demand and housing density than now let alone the future. Imposing the additional requirements resulting from another 160 properties would be irresponsible.

Utilities

The utilities serving the Little Common area i.e. water, sewage and flood prevention etc. were all created for a much lower usage level than currently exists and are unlikely to cope with the requirements of two significant new housing developments. In particular water and sewage services and flood prevention in the Spindlewood area are hardly coping with existing demand and will not be able to cope with the demand of a further 160 houses.

The infra-structure of the area in terms of roads, schools, shops, parking, medical facilities (particularly local doctor's surgery), and transport links are all already inadequate for the current Population 'let alone a population increase of at least 650 resulting from the building of an additional 160 houses.

The roadway access in particular for this proposed Spindlewood development is
inappropriate in that it would result in a dramatic increase in traffic along local unadopted roads These have been paid for and maintained at the cost of the frontagers. These unadopted roads were originally constructed to a standard required to service the limited number of properties along these roads and not to service a development of 160 houses and the resulting vehicle road usage at Spindlewood.

Housing Density.

The 160 houses in the Spindlewood proposal is excessive and disproportionate to the housing density levels in the adjacent roads and wider area. Furthermore their design and style are out of keeping with those in the surrounding area. This combination will change the mature of the area from a nicely balanced housing area into a jumble of uncoordinated mixture of property densities, sizes and styles.

Air Pollution

Increasing traffic congestion particularly on the Barnhorn Road, Little Common Road and in the Little Common village centre will all result in dramatic increase in pollution levels.

Residential Housing Targets.

With reference to housing targets and time scales the views of local residents should be the overriding priority rather than following the dictates of central government. Consequently a moratorium for at least 10 years should be imposed on the building of any type on the Spindlewood site. The achievement of current targets should be met by developing sites BX120 (Barnhorn Green), BX124 (North Bexhill Access Road and BX101 (North Eye) and other unidentified ad hoc commissions. This would mean no decision is necessary on the Spindlewood
site at this stage if ever particularly if the number of houses likely to be purchased for holiday homes and/or rental property is taken into account. Both hardly reasons for ruining the environment of the Spindlewood and wider Little Common community.

Aesthetics

Developing Spindlewood would destroy one of the few remaining traditional type of
aesthetic residential areas in the Rother District catchment.

The additional traffic along Maple Walk South, Maple Walk, Little Twitten, Maple Avenue, will turn these currently unadopted roads from routes that are used in the main by those residing in the immediate area to mini super highways with traffic from 160 extra houses using them for travelling to and from the:-

- South area of Little Common doctors surgery and shops and then onward via Birkdale to The Hastings-Direct area, the police station and adjacent commercial sites, and then to the Bexhill town centre and railway station and then again onward to Ravenside and Hastings.

- Cooden Beach Station, Cooden Beach Hotel and The Cooden Beach shore and onward to the Bexhill town centre, the Bexhill promenade and then further onward to Ravenside and Hastings.

Maple Walk, Little Twitted and Maple Avenue are all unadopted roads and as
Such are maintained at the of cost the frontagers and as such were originally constructed to a standard commensurate and subsequently maintained for the traffic from the limited number Of properties along the roads and not for the use of vehicles from 160 additional properties. In Addition Maple Walk South 'is very narrow and along most of its distant a single track "road".
Furthermore, Maple Walk South, Maple Walk, Little Twitten and Maple Avenue do not have any separation for pedestrians and vehicles, (in other words no pavements).

Conservation

Spindlewood and the adjacent t area of Cooden and the west of Little Common are semi-rural areas consisting of a good balance of housing types, woodland and open common type and the building of another 160 houses will turn it into another area of urban sprawl. This will not only be to the detriment of the human inhabitants but also specific wildlife (badgers, foxes etc.) and also the general fauna and flora of the area. The human inhabitants of the area have chosen the area and paid substantially above the local property prices for this privilege which will be destroyed by the unnecessary development of 160 houses at this location rather than elsewhere.

I do not agree with this requirement.

The proposed site at Spindlewood is a greenfield site, and I feel that a brownfield site such BX101 and or BX124 Option 2 is a more suitable location.

Regarding the proposed building of 160 dwellings backing onto Spindlewood Drive (Site Ref BX116) (Policy no BEX9) the proposed exit/entry onto Spindlewood Drive would cause complete chaos as Meads Road and Maple Walk are already very difficult to negotiate. I have given up driving down Maple Walk as one frequently meets lorries, bin men etc. and the need to try and back up into drives and side roads to let them pass is extremely difficult. What would it be like with another 160 or more other vehicles to contend with.