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

I believe that any decision to develop BX116 (land adjoining Spindlewood Drive/Maple Walk) should, at the very least, be postponed for 5 years whilst alternatives are investigated further. BX116 is the least appropriate of all the sites. Brownfield options and infill developments where former commercial/residential properties are converted to multi-occupancy should be considered first.

It is surely essential that if the necessary infrastructure is not in place already it is capable to being developed in tandem. This is not possible at BX116.

Is the culvert situated under Spindlewood Drive and beside the proposed only entrance to the development, which takes all the rain and water runoffs from the village, Barnham Road, Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive and offshoots, in a proper state to take the amount and loading of the construction traffic that will be passing over it all the time? What are the weight restrictions on this structure as modern construction equipment and large lorries with full loads can easily cause subsidence over time.

During the summer months, dependant on sun/rainfall (or lack of it), large cracks appear over the banks of the stream and into the gardens for several feet. These cracks are between one and three inches across and go down deep. This has caused erosion to the banks in many places.

The area of Spindlewood Drive and offshoot roads is susceptible to springs and has very damp conditions in places. A full ground survey of the proposed site should highlight these.

We have occupied our property since it was built in August 1989 and have seen enormous damage that has been done by badgers because they will always find a way. What steps to minimise this damage will be put in place. They have a regular run through to the Twitten between Meads Road and Barnhorn Road.

What proposals do you envisage putting in place to create space for these other protected creatures.

Parking - where will the workers on the site park their cars/vans/lorries?

The area is already overcrowded, with parking problems. Tesco have been complaining that customers cannot get parked as the car park is full, with people using tit to park to other shopping, lunches etc.

No, I do not agree to Policy BEX9.

I do not want to see any developments on this site (BX116) as there are more suitable sites (eg BX101 and BX124) for development of residential and affordable housing.

The infrastructure around BX116 is not adequate and is now frankly "saturated" and will not be able to cope with any further high density housing and traffic and it will seriously affect the quality of life and also have a massive impact on the health and wellbeing of residents living near BX116 site and all the "feeder/rat run" roads (Meads and Maple Walk, Maple Avenue, Clavering Walk, Cooden Sea Road, Herbrand Way and the Sluice Road).

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:

* Bamhorn 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.

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 Proposed Development Site Policy No. BEX9 (Site Ref: BX116).

There are more suitable Brown Field Sites available which will cause less impact on the already overstretched infrastructure of BEX9. This is a Green Field Site, it should be left alone, Green Field Sites are far too precious and are becoming fewer and fewer. It will be totally out of character with Little Common and the infrastructure around the immediate areas are overloaded already, i.e. Schools, Doctors, Roads so on and so forth.

There is huge flood potential, the fields and surrounding areas are already very wet and flooded in places. Where will the excess water go if it were to become a concrete jungle as you are proposing. Who would be held responsible/accountable for any flooding or problems associated with the over development of residential properties in and around the Little Common area?

The rural environment will be spoilt and the impact on the wildlife will be colossal. The surrounding fields are home to some protected species like newts, badgers as well as foxes, Green Woodpeckers, Greater Spotted Woodpeckers, in fact numerous bird species, squirrels, bats etc.

The development of BEX9 is totally un-necessary and undesirable. It would be completely wrong to ruin the status of the area and the village life experience by those already living in the area, the very reason many residents paid a premium to live here.

There are already traffic problems within the area and the development of BEX9 would exacerbate the problem two fold or more. The construction traffic of heavy lorries and the like will cause mayhem around the area causing even more congestion on the surrounding roads including the A259 due to the development also of numerous properties already agreed for Barnhorn Green. Chaos will prevail causing untold stress to those already living in the vicinity.

I note that it is proposed to build shops and residential properties on the former Co-op site at the end of Meads Road and more in Cooden Sea Road on the old Nat West site which again will cause untold problems with traffic and parking in the area of Meads Road, Cooden Sea Road and Little Common Roundabout. I urge you to remove BEX9 from the second DaSA consultation process and not to consider it for any future development.

35
Do not develop the site at all. The area is vastly over populated already.

It will cause increased traffic flow on Meads Road on to the very dangerous junction which leads onto Cooden Sea Road, then onto Little Common Roundabout and the A259 causing even more gridlock and congestion than there already is. Some of the traffic may choose to use Maple Avenue and Maple Road to access Cooden Sea Road further down causing even more mayhem! This will also have a detrimental effect on the air pollution putting some lives at risk!

Once the Barnhorn development of 342 houses is built and the possibility of another 31 properties in the pipeline for Ashridge Court, 10 in Barnhorn Road, 8 plus 9 in Cooden Sea Road, that's 400 more properties, that is approximately 800 vehicles, the area will be gridlocked the vast majority of the time, the present infrastructure will be unable to cope and is already struggling to cope.

This will reduce the quality of life in the surrounding areas, at present the area provides peace, tranquillity, an abundance of wildlife, that will be badly affected, and is a desirable place where people love to live.

The surrounding roads are mostly un-adopted, not suitable for heavy traffic, are in disrepair and will not be able to cope with any more traffic especially the amount that you are proposing.

This Green field site should never be developed, there are far more suitable sites for development, it will ruin the feel and look of the beautiful area beyond recognition, and the community that resides within it. Also it is a high flood risk area.

Notes on 27 also apply.
 

For all the reasons stated in answer to Question 27 amend the plan. Do not for all the reasons given develop the Spindlewood Drive site. It is a greenfield site and brownfield sits are always the preferred option i.e. BX124 and BX101.

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 panning regulation and targets.

Rother District Council stand up for your own environmental policies.

Housing Density

My hope is that this area is left as it is.

Should you persist in this crazy plan then a 75% reduction should be the total number of houses built.

Bearing in mind we chose and bought houses in this area because of the unchanged nature of Cooden and Little Common for the peace and quiet and paid extra to really enjoy the environment.

Highways

Great concern regarding narrow roads, Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Strive traffic truing to join Cooden Sea Road.

Also traffic at present on A259 often queuing from near to the garage ion Barnham Road, to Little common roundabout, never mind the forecast for 2028!

The unadopted roads Maple Avenue will, I'm sure, put in gates to stop any traffic on their unsuitable road should your plan success. The would have my full support in this.

Air Pollution

I believe you know that air pollution in the area is in question i.e. Little Common is nearing breaching safe levels!

With 342 houses being at Barnhorn Green approx. 683 more cars and then maybe 31 house at Ashridge Court Care Home approx. 62 more cars plus their visitors etc. Surely enough is indeed enough!

Environment

I would have thought this site would have a potential to flood - more so if houses, driveways, roads, etc are built. Less ground to soak away.

Infrastructure

Bearing in mind Barnham Green (342 houses) and maybe even (31 houses) at Ashridge Court Care Home would put an impossible strain on school, GP surgeries, chemist and shops etc.

Conservation

The field adjoining is, I gather, of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Ramsar (Site 973) is protected by International Law - Pevensey Plains.

Highways
As it is at present the A259 into Little Common always presents a high level of activity and congestion for most of the day the day with traffic jams into Little common as far back as Ashridge Court. With the development of both BX120 and BX 116 one would imagine a virtually permanent traffic jam, let along dramatic increase of air pollution. It is very difficult to cross the A259 quickly and safely bearing in mind the age of the people living in the area, you will be aware that there is not one zebra crossing from Pevensey to Little Common. In the Little common area there is at present little or no facility to park, you could say "why not walk". Again I would refer to the age of the people living in the area (ie the grey vote) even mobility scooters have difficult in parking let alone the increased danger from the dramatic impact of more than unacceptable increase in housing.

At present the Little Common Surgery is working to its max and adding more than unacceptable housing they could not copy. My point here is, at present one has great problems in parking, if at all. Is it proposed to provide a car park. RDC seems not to take into why people have moved into the area of West Bexhill, to the south of Barnhorn Road and the west of Cooden Sea Road. This currently provides an oasis of peace and tranquillity. Most resident living in the area chose to do this and have paid more than the local average housing costs as a result. Developing Spindle would fundamentally and detrimentally affect the environment.

Density

With the density proposed for the Spindlewood development the roads to the exiting to Maple Walk, Meads Road etc. are not suitable for increased traffic, as in several places it only allows a car in one direction at a time, especially with cars parked outside houses. Spindlewood Development is disproportionate to all adjacent roads and property styles and will change the general character of the entire area.

Air Pollution

Most people in the area have moved here to enjoy the quality of air (sea air is very good for you) with your proposal of greatly increasing housing, this would guarantee that with every household bringing at least one if not two additional care, more cars, more pollution, more congestion. The roads (half with potholes) are not capable to handling the greatly increased volume of transport, You probably are not interested to know, I am in my 80s. However for 4 years I was in the R.A.F at RAF Wartling. It was a master Radar station not only protecting, yes, this area, but London also. If the Russian bombers (Cold War) had dropped their nuclear bombs we would not be discussing today's problems. Since being I the RAF, I have lived and worked throughout the world, but in retirement I have returned to this area hoping for peace and tranquillity. Thank you!

I disagree with Policy BEX9 as it is unsuitable for the following reasons.

1. Only one vehicular access into narrow roads.

2. Increased traffic volume to an area already severely congested, thus increasing pollution levels.

3. Pressure on schools, doctors and infrastructure.

4. High concentration of houses in small area, as Barnhorn Green site is for development. Might BEX9 be delayed until impacts of that site be assessed.

Why develop this site at all!

No full account has been taken of the windfall development which has seen 70 per annum over the last 10 years. Why will this reduce?

Little Common - the roads, the shops, the schools, the surgery are all overstretched at the moment and Meads Road is already a nightmare. Add pollution, flood risk, traffic jams and road surfaces as well as parking.

Village life that currently exists is at risk.

I disagree with BEX9 site reference BX116 Spindlewood Drive being a preferred site for housing development.

There are several other sites which would better serve the proposed development e.g. Site BX124 could be increased to house the whole 160 houses proposed on this site where there will be a much larger self-sufficient structure developed i.e. schools, shops, medical services and more adequate access and road structure.

The access into Meads Road is totally unacceptable and all of the infrastructure in Little Common is already saturated and heavily polluted.

Additional houses here will add to the expelling of water storm and other urban areas that are already showing signs of flooding so before any further moves are made on this site a full flood survey and appraisal should be carried out especially with continued global warming.

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

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

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

I do not agree with the requirements of policy BEX9 for the following reasons:

* Highway access through Spindlewood Drive is not appropriate. Any access to the proposed development should be directly on to the A259 and not through Spindlewood Drive and Meads Road.

* Meads Road is used for parking by residents and people who work in Little Common. As a result it is essentially a single track road unsuited to heavy traffic use and especially not to use by heavy construction vehicles. The type of construction of the road also does not look strong enough to withstand this type of use.

* The junction of Meads Road with Cooden Sea Road is already frequently congested by the parking of delivery vans, traffic in and out of the Tesco express carpark and the volume of traffic feeding onto the roundabout. Further increase in traffic use from construction traffic and then from extra housing off Spindlewood Drive (resident use and delivery vans would be in excess of 800 movements a day) would make this junction difficult and dangerous.

* There would most likely also be an increase in traffic use of Maple Walk. For much of its length this is a single track road with passing places and no pavement. Increased traffic use would present a hazard in what is essentially a quiet country lane. It is also an unadopted road where residents pay for its upkeep and extra use would involve them in greater costs. This seems unreasonable when extra use will come from non-residents of the road.

* The fields off Spindlewood are adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. The environmental report produced for the potential developer of the site has large sections redacted. An independent report carried out by the council with all relevant information provided seems necessary before a valid decision can be made about the protections required on this site.

* The fields in this area are prone to flooding. Inevitably, any substantial building development in the area would have an impact on the water table and drainage. SuDs drainage has been incorporated in the proposal but a proper flood assessment would seem appropriate to assess the security of surrounding houses and the impact of further building adjacent to fields which are below sea level.

* The case for additional housing at the site is not sufficiently demonstrated. Other planned developments in Little Common (31 house cul de sac off Barnhorn Road, plans for 17 flats are three different locations in Little Common) have not been included in the figures given on this proposal. Northeye is a possible alternative site which is a brown field site and could provide over a hundred dwellings. In total this would exceed the number proposed for land off Spindlewood Drive. The land off Spindlewood Drive is a greenfield site. Brownfield sites are always to be preferred to greenfield sites for any development and yet this site is shown as preferred when a brownfield site is available at Northeye.

* This part of Little Common has retained a semi- rural aspect; any further development, particularly at such a high level of density which is totally out of keeping with the existing housing would change the nature of the area for ever with the consequent loss of any sense of distinctive character.

* The lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even more development over and above the Barnhorn Green site is also very concerning. There are no plans to provide additional school places or a doctors' surgery or any other additional facilities. Where will the children go to school? How will Little Common surgery cope with this massive increase in patient numbers? Where will the new residents be working? All of this suggests considerable pressure on local resources and yet more daily traffic on the already over used A259.

We do not agree with this requirement and it should be deleted.

Comments on projected development BX116, Land off Spindlewood Drive part of the Green Belt!

The proposed access via Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive is totally unsuitable, as Meads Road is already highly congested and extremely difficult for larger vehicles and the first part of Spindlewood Drive is already a very dangerous spot awaiting an accident. This whole project should be abandoned and replaced by other building sites with access to the North Bexhill Access Road and its extension through to the A259. For example, the development of additional housing on the Northeye site.

The following are my objections to the proposed development of 160 dwellings at
Spindlewood Drive (Site Reference 116 - Question 35)

1. The access roads, namely Meads Road and Maple Walk are unsuitable, especially Maple Walk in view of the width of the road in certain parts.

2. Maple Walk used by pedestrians for walking to the village, beach, station, children to school as well as invalid carriages. It is also used for recreational walking. In view of the width of the road it's necessary, on occasions to have to stand on the side of the road to let the vehicle pass. With an increase in traffic that will be inevitable if the proposed development goes ahead, walking along Maple Walk would become extremely hazardous.

3. I fear that Meads Road, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue will become "rat runs" in order to avoid the congestion on entering or exiting Meads Road. This again raises the safety issues for pedestrians.

4. The increase in traffic that will be generated by the proposed development together with developments in Barnhorn Green and Barnhorn Road will be completely unacceptable for a small village like Little Common. It is madness.

5. There is insufficient infrastructure to accommodate more people; the schools are full as is the doctor's surgery and parking in extremely difficult at any time of the day.

6. The site in question is very wet and boggy. What will happen when concrete starts to be poured for the purpose of the roads and the footings? Inevitable flooding.

7. Drainage is another issue that needs addressing. The site is low lying. Will the sewage need to be pumped up to the main drainage?

8. I feel there are far more suitable sites namely BX 124 and BX 101.

9. Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are unadopted roads and, as such, are maintained by the frontagers. The increase in traffic will obviously mean that the road will need resurfacing more frequently at the cost of the frontagers.

The following are my objections to the proposed development of 160 dwellings at
Spindlewood Drive (Site Reference 116 - Question 35)

1. The access roads, namely Meads Road and Maple Walk are unsuitable, especially Maple Walk in view of the width of the road in certain parts.

2. Maple Walk used by pedestrians for walking to the village, beach, station, children to school as well as invalid carriages. It is also used for recreational walking. In view of the width of the road it's necessary, on occasions to have to stand on the side of the road to let the vehicle pass. With an increase in traffic that will be inevitable if the proposed development goes ahead, walking along Maple Walk would become extremely hazardous.

3. I fear that Meads Road, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue will become "rat runs" in order to avoid the congestion on entering or exiting Meads Road. This again raises the safety issues for pedestrians.

4. The increase in traffic that will be generated by the proposed development together with developments in Barnhorn Green and Barnhorn Road will be completely unacceptable for a small village like Little Common. It is madness.

5. There is insufficient infrastructure to accommodate more people; the schools are full as is the doctor's surgery and parking in extremely difficult at any time of the day.

6. The site in question is very wet and boggy. What will happen when concrete starts to be poured for the purpose of the roads and the footings? Inevitable flooding.

7. Drainage is another issue that needs addressing. The site is low lying. Will the sewage need to be pumped up to the main drainage?

8. I feel there are far more suitable sites namely BX 124 and BX 101.

9. Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are unadopted roads and, as such, are maintained by the frontagers. The increase in traffic will obviously mean that the road will need resurfacing more frequently at the cost of the frontagers.

Living in Maple Walk I feel this road is not suitable for more traffic to come down if this site is used. In some parts it is just a lane and in daily use with mothers talking their children to the local school.

We also pay for the upkeep of this road which would be used much more.

Would it not be better to use the area on the link road.

Let us see what effect the Barnhorn Green estate has on the A259 and the Little common roundabout, which daily has holdups and worse in peak traffic flows.

Also our schools and doctors would not be able to cope with all the new residents.

1. The required infrastructure must be determined before any application is made. Developers must have a responsibility for the required infrastructure.

2. Affordable housing would be much better served if relocated to BX124 where there is an element of infrastructure.

3. Windfall sites should be investigated more fully to utilise in town empty properties for residential use.

4. Specific to Q35 the entrance from Maple Walk is single file traffic on unadopted roads such as Little Twitten and Maple Avenue. From Meads Road all traffic flows through an already bottle neck at Little common roundabout. Air pollution will increase.

5. The proposed 160 dwellings must have adequate school, doctors' surgeries, care homes etc. Even shopping will only be possible in Bexhill being the closest and already congested.

6. It appears to me that the number of dwellings expected in the Bexhill area of RDC is totally disproportionate to the overall size of the area.

1. Very wet land - flood assessment should be done.

2. Very limited infrastructure in Little Common to support 160 properties causing extra pressure on roads, school, doctors.

3. Access along Meads Road on to Cooden Sea Road unsuitable and would lead to increased hold ups and queueing traffic on roundabout and along Barnhorn Road leading to increased air pollution which will exceed safe levels. Maple Walk and Avenue unsuitable exits as unadopted.

4. Density out of keeping with area - better to put affordable housing at BX124 Questions 29, where there is better infrastructure - schools, doctors, roads, shops etc.

5. Develop other sites which would have less detrimental effect on local environment and at least wait until Barnhorn Green has been developed to analyse impact of traffic on locality

6. Validate numbers produced by windfall dwellings.

Site BX116 - Spindlewood Drive should not be developed. There are more suitable sites available such as BX101 - a brownfield site and Options 2 or 3 at BX124. This alternative would reduce the pressure on local services such as doctors, schools and pharmacies and reduce to a certain extent traffic travelling east on the A259.

The proposal to access the site from Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive is impractical because of the vehicles parked in both roads by residents and non-residents both these roads are not restricted to a single carriageway. The resulting increase in traffic delays, air pollution and noise along these roads in Little common would be unacceptable. The only suitable access to the site would be from the A259, as stated in the Council's Local Plan Core Strategy paper.

The size and density of the proposed development is too large and completely out of character with the surrounding area. Furthermore it would completely change the environment of the area and significantly and adversely affect the quality of life of the residents of the area who will have paid a premium on their house price to be able to enjoy the peace and quiet the area currently offers.

My garden backs directly onto the farmland proposed for development BEX9. After heavy rain the drainage in my garden is very slow and the rainwater takes days to be absorbed. I frequently have to sprinkle sand on the lawn to assist drainage. I understand parts of the countryside surrounding Pevensey is marshland and flood plains.

With all the other proposed sites in question, RDC quota for new housing may be met and therefore the need to building on poor drainage land not necessary or appropriate.

Highway Access

Totally unsuitable. Inappropriate for proposed BX116 - Spindlewood Drive.

I live in Meads Road and believe along with many local residents in that the Meads Road access point is totally unsuitable on the following points:

Narrow roads - Maple Walk, Maple Avenue and Meads Avenue are unadopted roads and Meads Road is also unstable for very heavy vehicles.

The concrete bays along Meads Road have problems with slight voids, creating the bays to slap; this can be heard within properties and has been reported to Highways from myself. No.7 has reported he can feel it through his wheelchair.

On the width issue in Meads Road, there was a delivery to No.24 Meads Road by a builders merchant, 2 refuse lorrys driving towards Cooden Sea Road from Spindlewood found they had difficulty passing so they both half mounted the footway and Road, drove approx. 30/40 metres breaking nearly all the paving slabs. I noticed this on my security cameras. I inspected the footway and called Highways straight away. Councillor Stuart Earl attended the site along with Highways. Highways agreed it was in a state and the area was coned off. Kier, Refuse Contractor to the Council, were contacted, at first they denied any responsibility but with the evidence shown they admitted they were guilty! Kier ended up paying for the damage, unfortunately they ripped up all the slabs and tarmac the area to the annoyance of local residents.
Photo's attached.

2) Other concerns are the possible damage to utilities by the heavy traffic. In the past the 150mm/6"water main with (6 bar of pressure) has broken in several places this may have been caused by the concrete bays slapping causing vibration. I have worked for South East Water for 39 years and have a very good understanding of broken pipes.

33.000 H voltage electric cable runs down Kennel lane and into Meads road. Any damage to the cable due to heavy traffic would cause catastrophic injuries, or worse, as this is used by pedestrians.

Two engineers from East Sussex Highways, who I know personally, reported to me after I complained that the Council will not do anything towards the concrete bays as this would be far too expensive. I emailed East Sussex Highways and they sent a Highways Inspector to the site and he only carried out a visual check, they informed me that I would have to employ a special engineer at my cost and if it was proved that the vibration was evident and causing damage to my property then I could make a claim. I'm shocked that Highways do not have some sort of equipment to measure vibrations.

Looking at all the infrastructure in the proposed development for Spindlewood BX116. I find it totally inappropriate when other sites available ie BX124 are more acceptable, this is where 450 houses are already currently proposed but where numbers could be increased by another 65 - 215.

BX124 and BX106 are both brown field sites and should always be preferred over Greenfield sites as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para's 17, 89 & 111.

Junction with Cooden Sea Road
Another factor is the meads Road junction with Cooden Sea Road, this junction is very dangerous, on many occasions cars double park causing major problems with traffic congestion in Cooden Sea Road close to a very busy pelican crossing. With the possibility of the proposed build at Spindlewood I can see that all the traffic in and out of the site will all use this junction. An accident waiting to happen!

With all the parking problems within Little Common and the proposed 9 flats on the old Co-op site and 8 flats on the old Nat West bank site the village and Meads Road will be gridlocked!

There are more suitable sites including BX124 option2 and BX101 (a brownfield site that should always be preferred over a greenfield site such as Spindlewood as stated in the National Planning Framework (NPPF) paras 17, 89 & 111


Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28015

I object to this development with Spindlewood Drive the only access point. In my opinion the unadopted roads and Meads Road are unsuitable for the heavy traffic during construction and the large number of residents' cars on completion.

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

As a group we are opposed to the proposed development BX116 of Policy BEX9 in its entirety.

We ask for it to be removed from the list of Preferred Sites and not be considered for any future development as part of the second DaSA consultation process.

* RDC have stated that they are not willing to take projected windfall properties into account when estimating their target figure of 3100 for Bexhill. This is plainly wrong. RDC have well documented history of an average of 70 small site windfalls per annum being achieved over the past 10 years. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this will not continue until 2028 and the windfalls have no direct bearing or association with the DaSA process and projected development sites. The two issues are separate. An allowance of at least 35-40 windfalls per annum should therefore be incorporated into the DaSA process and projected housing completions.

* We believe it to be superfluous: in the light of the capacity of other proposed sites to provide adequate development potential (for employment as well as residential properties) as well as the almost certain excess of windfall developments we feel that RDC can achieve, even exceed, its development targets without this development.

* We believe it to be totally undesirable. It is wholly impractical, likely to have a significant detrimental impact on west Bexhill, further burdens limited local infrastructure, is out of character with Little Common and based on highly suspect traffic predictions.

Is this development really necessary?

We consider the development to be superfluous to RDC requirements to meet its housing development targets. SPINDAG responses to other questions in this consultation, particularly Q27 show that other developments already at advanced planning stages or under consideration in the DaSA are already likely to enable RDC to exceed its development targets with no development necessary for BEX9/BEX116, especially if windfalls are taken into account by RDC.

There are already a number of advanced developments in the Little Common area, quite apart from the large development at Barnhorn Green. Residential development has been submitted for land near Ashridge Court at the west of Barnhorn Road (31), for the former Co-op building in Little Common (9 plus 3 shops), at 45-47 Barnhorn Road (8) and the former NatWest Bank building (8) in Little Common. These all add to the number of properties that RDC must see developed and their impact on local traffic levels and infrastructure demands should be considered in addition to the Barnhorn Green development.

There is credible evidence (based on RDC-supplied data) that far many more windfall properties will be developed in coming years than RDC supposes in the DaSA plan, easing and possibly exceeding the achievement of RDC's targets.

Furthermore, some slight increases in other more suitable sites will easily enable RDC to provide better located and better quality living environments for new residents than in BEX9/BX116 such as BX124 (Option 3).


Why is this development undesirable?

Local traffic problems

This is a high-density development being squeezed into a very small and environmentally-sensitive area with ridiculously constricted access.

As proposed, vehicular access to the site will be via Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive. Meads Road is already used as an all-day car park by residents, visitors and tradesmen and is effectively a single lane road. Passing traffic has to negotiate a right of way with opposing vehicles. Furthermore, the condition of the road surface in Meads Road is very poor and does not seem to be a priority for repair, or even routine maintenance, by the local authorities. The concrete surface is breaking up and residents report being aware of moving slabs as heavy vehicles pass their properties.

At present the small Spindlewood Drive estate serves about forty five properties. The initial length of Spindlewood Drive is also used as a car/van park by Meads Road residents and visitors, since Meads Road parking is usually at its capacity. These parked vehicles have nowhere else to go in the whole area. Vehicles entering Spindlewood Drive via Maple Walk west are thus made to approach a blind bend into Spindlewood Drive forcing vehicles to the right hand side of the road, risking running into vehicles leaving the estate.

Increasing the traffic flows into and out of Spindlewood Drive from that associated with forty five properties to in excess of two hundred is absolute madness, especially considering that this traffic is not only private cars but delivery vans, utilities vehicles, emergency services, heavy goods vehicles and others. Not to mention the fact that there is very limited visibility for traffic on Meads Road to see into Spindlewood Drive and vice versa due to the tightness and narrowness of the junction and the afore-mentioned parked cars and vans on both roads.

It is proposed that the former Co-op building at the end of Meads Road could be developed for shopping and residential properties, significantly increasing vehicle density and traffic flows into and out of the east end of Meads Road. This will undoubtedly see delivery vehicles parking at the very entrance to Meads Road, as well as shoppers who will not use the (Pay & Display) car park behind Tesco but prefer to park on double-yellow lines. The junction of Meads Road and Cooden Sea Road will become itself a log-jam even before the Little Common roundabout and A259 come under consideration. This junction is already dangerous, vision towards the south for traffic emerging from Meads Road is severely restricted by vehicles parked outside the former Co-op building, and restricted to the north by vehicles illegally (but with impunity) parked on the pavement to the north.

Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive are wholly unsuited to the level of traffic such a development would generate.

The would-be developer of BX116 has provided a barely credible "Technical Note" predicting an "immaterial" impact from increased BEX116 traffic on the Little Common roundabout (available on the DaSA web site, presumably with RDC's endorsement). It studiously avoids addressing traffic flows along Spindlewood Drive and Meads Road. This self-serving document seems to have been accepted at face value by RDC but should be re-assessed on a more realistic and analytical basis in terms of the impact on Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Drive.

For example, the Transport Statement for the proposed development of only thirty one properties near Ashridge Court (RR/2016/3206/P) offers a far more thorough analysis of traffic flows into and out of that site and the impact that these will have on the A259. This document and its underlying model and assumptions would seem to be acceptable to the relevant transport authorities. Therefore, it would be entirely reasonable and enlightening to use the same models and assumptions to extrapolate the potential traffic flows for the 160 houses of BX116.

On this basis the following will be seen on Meads Road:

* Peak traffic flow (08:00 - 09:00 & 17:00 - 18:00) of between 90-100 vehicles each hour along Meads Road & Spindlewood Drive

* Total traffic movements of c 850 per day

RDC planners should view the BEX9/BX116 Transport Note with some scepticism and should seek a rigorous revision by an uninterested party.

There is a real risk, therefore, that some traffic for the BX116 housing estate will use Maple Walk as a rat-run alternative to Meads Road. Maple Walk is an unadopted road, much of it very narrow, effectively single lane, like Meads Road. The increased traffic flow along Maple Walk and Maple Avenue would be unbearable for their residents, not to mention the added wear & tear on roads which they must maintain at their own expense.

It should be noted that RDC's own Adopted Core Strategy (Sept 2014) states in para 8.56 that "access (to the west of Little Common both north and south of Barnhorn Road) would need to be created directly off the A259". This alone would seem to prohibit the proposed access to BX116 from using Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive.

Despite our outright objection to this development it is also worthy of note that the would-be developer, Mr Ellis, stated to SPINDAG representatives in a meeting on 2nd Dec ember 2016 that if the development were to go ahead all construction traffic would access the site via an entrance on the A259. If that were to be possible for an extended period for heavy goods vehicles, cranes, diggers and other traffic, why could it not form the permanent access point for the estate? Serious commitment by the developer or pillow talk? We have seen no credible Transport Management Plan from the developer which addresses the serious impact any means of development of BX116 would have on the surrounding area, whatever the access. RDC must insist therefore on a Transport Management Plan irrespective of the access point.


Density of proposed development

The housing estate proposed is far too high a density for the area surrounding it. This area of Little Common consists predominantly of mature detached houses. It has already been noted that the Spindlewood Drive estate has only about forty five houses. It is proposed to pack 160 into an area not much larger than that original development (allowing for trees, play areas, ponds, etc.). This near-quadrupling of housing density is entirely out of keeping with the local area and even residents of the proposed estate would find themselves with very a cramped environment with certain problems for parking multiple vehicles per household, probably including vans, caravans and camper vans.

Environmental Concerns

Although the would-be developer has provided an Ecological Appraisal for BX116 many issues remain to be carefully considered and studied further. There are valid questions to be raised about the ease with which their suggested mitigations can be implemented and their likely effectiveness. This site lies adjacent to areas which are designated SSSI and/or Ramsar sites, deserving of especially rigorous protection. These observations and re-assurances do not seem to have been studied and approved by the relevant utilities, environmental protection and wildlife authorities. The study was commissioned by and paid for by the developer with a commercial interest in this site, hardly an uninterested party. Not least are the issues surrounds drainage and flooding risks, SUDS designs and expectations. Nor is it clear who would be held responsible for any future flooding or environmental damage and how they might be sanctioned in the event of any failure of these measures.

One can foresee major disturbance to the land under development during the construction phase before these mitigating facilities can be put in place. There is, therefore, a serious risk of permanent environmental damage and wildlife disturbance not only on this site but the surrounding sensitive areas. These could never be corrected and the developer would have built his houses anyway. It is especially concerning that certain sections of the Ecological Appraisal have been redacted - why? By whom? With what objective in mind? This should be investigated and the public made aware of the reasons for this.


Wider local impact:

The road system, local services and infrastructure around Little Common are already due to be overloaded without the added burden which BEX9/BX116 would bring. The doctors' surgery is always packed (the new one proposed for Barnhorn Green having been abandoned), the school is over-subscribed and there are no secondary schools nearby.

It is a widely held view across the whole Bexhill district that the A259 is wholly unsuitable for the traffic levels passing through Little Common and Bexhill overall. Much of it is through traffic which must use the A259 as the only major east-west route along England's south coast. If anything, the new Bexhill-Hastings Link Road has added to traffic pouring through Little Common as it provides an improved route for traffic aiming to bypass St. Leonards and Hastings (partially). The much talked about Bexhill bypass comes to mind in this context - linking the NBAR to the A259 west of Bexhill would alleviate some of this traffic, not to mention bringing a huge area for further housing and business development into play.

There are few local (in Little Common) employment opportunities for the envisaged residents of Barnhorn Green, not to mention BX116, so it can be certainly assumed that these working residents will use their cars to go to/from work and that parents will drive their children to the (overloaded) Little Common school or elsewhere. Surveys have shown that the A259 is already carrying traffic levels which were forecast not to be reached until 2028.

We have learnt that no recent air pollution monitoring has been taking place along the A259 in Little Common (though a lamp-post mounted unit is soon to be installed). The lack of any current knowledge of existing air pollution levels is disturbing, given that RDC has already approved substantial new development projects in the area and is anticipating even more - without apparent regard for this serious, health-related issue, and doubly serious considering the increased proportion of children these proposed developments might bring to the area. It is already planned that traffic lights be installed on the A259 for an entrance serving Barnhorn Green which will create yet more standing traffic along that busy road.

The northern end of Cooden Sea Road is currently a free-for-all illegal car park, while the Pay & Display car park behind St Martha's church stands mostly empty, and this is before Barnhorn Green comes into being. Even more housing development in this very congested area will make life insufferable for residents, both current and future. Enough is enough.

Development creep

We have concerns about the longer-term risk of "development creep". BX116 lies adjacent to other sites which were considered for development (BX51, BX109, BX115 & BX61). These have been ruled unsuitable, often due to recognised flood risk (uncontrolled drainage from BX116?) and for the sake of views from elsewhere in the area, mainly from the west and so judged to be "out of character" with the local area. We believe that the current assignment of these sites to the unsuitable category would be put in jeopardy if the BX116 development took place. There would certainly be further pressure from land-owners and developers keen to cash in on the sprawl that an extended development south of Barnhorn Road would facilitate. If BX115 and BX108 are precious and worthy of protection to preserve the area's "character", then so too should be BX116. As they say in the sales: When it's gone, it's gone.

The Spindlewood Action Group - SPINDAG - has conducted extensive research, held public meetings and surgeries amongst local residents and found the vast majority of respondents to believe this proposed development to be wholly unnecessary and undesirable. We ask that it be removed from the second DaSA consultation process and not to be considered for any future development.

1. The Technical Note supplied to report on the likely effects of developments south of Barnhorn Road were done in 2015. This was before the Link road was opened and therefore bares no relevance to today's traffic. The effect of the link road has been to dramatically increase the traffic using Barnhorn Road. (And hence all surrounding roads).

The report states that the SATURN modelling has taken into account the opening of the link road but this is clearly not the case as the only true test for modelling, as any scientist will tell you, is to view the actual situation which we can now observe. Talk to anyone who must come into Little Common at peak time from the west, they often join the queue at Northeye or sometimes at the bottom of the hill on the marsh road. That does not tally with your reported (modelled) traffic. This is all before any building has taken place at Barnhorn Green or Northeye or Spindlewood.

Point 4.9 of the report states that "The Barnhorn Road arm is predicted to be overcapacity for both weekday AM and PM peak hours in both with the proposed development and without proposed development scenario but that "through mitigation such as minor carriageway widening could easily be mitigated to a nil detriment scenario". I would like to know where and how such a carriageway widening would occur as I cannot see anywhere on this road or more importantly at the junction of Barnhorn Road and the Little Common roundabout where this is possible. If it is possible this should be instigated NOW, before any additional housing is built, so that evidence of such mitigation is proven in traffic numbers.

All of the above increase in traffic will cause anyone coming from the proposed Spindlewood estate (and all the existing traffic locally) to use alternative routes, many of which are not suitable or safe for increased traffic flow, these routes include Maple Walk (Single carriageway in places and unadopted) Maple Avenue (Unadopted), Birkdale - already gridlocked at peak times due to school children delivery and already an accident waiting to happen, Herbrand Walk - single carriageway in places.

Page 7 of the report states that likely access point for Spindlewood needs to be from Barnhorn Road, the fact that now it is proposed to be from Spindlewood Drive would lead me to believe that the planners intention is to drive local traffic onto the alternative routes. This is unfair on local rates payers and unsafe to all local people.

a) I propose that a new traffic census needs to be undertaken now post the opening of the link road to provide true base line figures not "modelled" estimates.

b) Access to the planned site at Spindlewood if built, must be from Barnhorn Road for the safety of road users in the Meads Road & Little Common area. It is clear that it is the intension of RDC to allow further housing developments west of the proposed Spindlewood site in the future so the mitigating minor carriageway proposal for Barnhorn road can surely accommodate this extra traffic?

c) Any mitigation of current excessive traffic such as minor carriageway widening to the A259 must be implemented now in order to prove its effectiveness before more housing is built.

2. The Ecological Appraisal: In point 3.1.2 it states that the nearest SSSI & RAMSAR site is located approximately 160m to the west of the site. (Actually SW.) Point 4.3.2 states that The nearest unit of the SPA/Ramsar/SSSI to the site is located approximately 375m east of the site, and approximately 485m east of the proposed development footprint. This would place it somewhere east of Little Common? If this is a cut and paste from another report it does not bode well for the surety of the report in total?

The proposed site layout plan does not include any of the siting for SUDS scheme. Point 4.4.8 sub 4 states that a water from hard surface runoff will be directed to catch pits and then on to swales which then in turn directs water to flow to regulation/ecological wetland/pond areas that will hold the 1 in 100 yr plus climate change storm events and provide the final treatment before discharging to the local watercourse in a controlled manner at greenfield runoff rates. I presume into The Cole Stream which runs directly into the RAMSAR site?

Please can you tell me what holding capacity this final wetland/pond will be and will it be empty in order to receive the 1 in 100 yr storm event if it happened and where it will be sited?

Will this SUDS scheme be sited within the planning outline as currently there does not seem to be any space for it? The report states that runoff water will be collected and channelled into the SUDS system within the Environmental Mitigation Area. Is this the same area on the site layout plan called "area of enhancement and mitigation?" if so then more than half the planned site will not be covered by these SUDS scheme as the eastern half of the planned area it is up to 5m lower than the area of enhancement and mitigation ? Please explain how the water will flow uphill? Please can we have answers to these questions and a plan showing where the SUDS scheme will be sited.

1. Spindlewood Drive is a totally inappropriate site for 160 new homes. Access via Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Drive would be entirely inadequate and unsuitable for an increased volume of traffic (approx. 300 additional cars from an estate of 160 homes being driven on narrow residential roads with a considerable amount of vehicles regularly parked on them. Access to Meads Road from Cooden Sea Road is also dangerous not only due to the narrow width of Meads Road at the junction with Cooden Sea Road but also poor visibility for drivers exiting from Meads Road. Peak traffic congestion would result in vehicles from a development off Spindlewood Drive backing up Meads Road and probably diverting down Maple Walk which is an unadopted road and maintained by its residents.
2. The A259 and Little Common roundabout are near to full capacity and confirmed by Highways England as being close to the maximum capacity levels forecast for 2028. Traffic flow at peak times is 900 vehicles per hour in each direction. Further development at Little Common would have an immensely adverse impact on the problem regardless of the developer's incredible assurances that there would be a "minimal increase" in traffic.
3. To the south of the proposed site there is an area of Special Scientific Interest and a RAMSAR site. Conservation sites would be compromised as a result of further development.
4. Environmentally there would be an increased risk of flooding which is already an issue in this area. Extensive building and concreting over a Greenfield site would increase the risk of flooding and endanger wildlife and the environment.
5. Local infrastructure in Little Common is near to capacity in terms of the GP surgery and the primary school is fully subscribed. Car parking is a big problem as is illegal on pavement parking in Little Common. Further vehicles from a new major development would only exacerbate these problems.
6. Air pollution on the A259 is already high and would be increased as a result of the BX116 development. I understand that monitoring devices are to be installed on Barnhorn Road which will provide up to date information.
7. Given that there is already a considerable amount of development in place or planned for Little Common as well as the Barnhorn Green project, which is proceeding, there is no need for a further 160 homes to be built off Spindlewood Drive. Projected figures for new homes taken from RDC published material (including windfalls) indicate that the RDC target of 3100 homes to be built by 2028 will be accomplished without the need to develop off Spindlewood Drive at all.
8. If, in spite of this, RDC still considers more homes should be built, I strongly suggest further development of BX124 by way of option 3 makes far more sense. This is a new site so obviously development there would not adversely affect any existing residents. Access via NBAR will be good and this should also ease congestion on the A259.

I will be writing separately as Joint Secretary of the Maple Walk (South) Road Maintenance Scheme. Here I simply re-emphasise the unacceptable impact of the proposed development of BX116 on the residents responsible for the upkeep of the unadopted roads in the vicinity.

The plans for BX116 seem to have been progressed without any regard whatsoever for local residents. The additional traffic (and the damage to the unadopted roads it will cause both during the construction phase and thereafter) represents a totally unacceptable burden. Moreover, there is no pavement on Maple Walk, and additional traffic also represents a risk to pedestrian safety.

Were some development to proceed, then given the impact upon the unadopted roads both the vehicle and pedestrian entrances should be onto Barnhorn Road, and there should be no entry into or out of Spindlewood Drive. Barnhorn Road is a trunk road and, although badly congested at peak times since the opening of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, it is maintained at public expense to take a much higher traffic flow. (Closing the link between BX116 and Spindlewood Drive would be necessary to prevent its use as a rat-run to and from the A259 to avoid the Little Common roundabout.)

We have already addressed many of the issues in relation to BX9 under Question 27 and would like our comments there taken into account here. This question seems to relate particularly to Spindlewood BX116 but cannot be looked at in isolation to Barnhorn Green and Northeye (BX101) and BX120. The infrastructure of Little Common would need to be expanded to cope with such an increase e.g. school places (Little Common School is already near capacity), Doctors and Health services, Chemist etc. (we have already lost the proposed school site on Barnhorn Green to further housing as East Sussex said they had no plans to build at the present time). There does not seem to be any joined up thinking in any of this or planning ahead. At the very least this site should not be approved until the effect of Barnhorn Green is seen on the roads in the area particularly Barnhorn Road and Little Common roundabout as well as the local school and Doctors and other infrastructure. In view of this we believe that other sites around the North Bexhill Access and link road would give people better access to roads and services or at the least delay decisions until the effect Barnhorn Green has on Barnhorn Road (See example of congestion under Question 27).