Policy BEX9: Land off Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill

DaSA paragraphs 6.27 and 6.31 outline the circumstances that might permit risk to a SSSI where there is a strong presumption against any development and could be considered only where there are no alternative solutions and the work is required for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest.

The choice of the site on pages 142-146 has not been justified as being appropriate and no reasonable alternative sites have been considered.

The site, that clearly has many different environmental challenges associated with it, is being promoted as suitable for development. A considerable number of conditions for development are outlined that will clearly be expensive if they were to implemented and must put at risk the requirement for 30% affordable housing since the overheads will need to be amortised over the total intended build. RDC already has an excessive house price to earnings ratio of 9.27 (paragraph 4.3) and promoting such a complex set of conditions for this site can only add significantly to costs of this proposed development.

The perceived constraints applicable to such a sensitive and challenging (not unreasonably described as highly unsuitable) site that would be faced by a developer are contained in Policy BEX9. Unfortunately 2 of the most important are absent, namely the critical need to ensure no pollution leaves the site during construction and, the even more necessary, binding legal arrangements for maintenance of the SUDs over the lifetime of the development (at least 50 years?). While these aspects are covered in Policy DEN5 (ii) and (v) they have not been made explicit with regard to the Spindlewood Site. This renders this proposal ineffective as the necessary delivery partners are absent.

This document section is therefore considered unsound in that there are inconsistencies within it with respect to site BEX9 that has not been shown to be necessary in the over-riding public interest (indeed over 1500 objections to it have been made by the public). Furthermore, the provisions laid down for protection of the Pevensey Levels are woefully inadequate to insure their freedom from pollution from the site and appear at odds with the RDC legal responsibilities for protection of this SSSI.

The promotion of such a site is not consistent with national policy where the presumption of development clearly does not apply.

The proposed build of 160 dwellings represents only 5% of the total planned for Bexhill and could be accommodated elsewhere on sites that do not offer the same risks, legal complexities and costs as BEX9.

This site/policy should be deleted from DaSA.

As previously submitted I have major concerns in respect of BEX9.
The site is not suitable for development due to the proximity to Pevensey Levels. The applicants are unable to prove there will be no impact on said protected area.
The local highways and traffic levels will be unable to accept further vehicle movements without major congestion and risk of vehicle on vehicle accidents.
The site allocation has been driven not by RDC officers considering acceptability BUT by a landowner and developers coercing a weak planning department.
The site is outside of the existing Development Boundary which exists to protect existing settlement and protect from over development of greenfield sites.

The council is well aware that this development is too close to Pevensey Levels and that the applicants suggestion for avoiding damage to this area which, as the council is aware, is designated RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC.

If RDC were to grant permission this would be an abdication by the council of its planning responsibilities. The council needs to ensure that any and all decisions it takes is respect of this or any future applications must only be on the basis of ensuring the continued protection of this ecologically important area

The proposed mitigation on the impact on the Pevensey Levels from the proposed building to Spindlewood Close appears to be unsound. There is a high likelihood of the pond becoming deformed and losing capacity resulting in the flooding of untreated water to the Pevensey Levels - with compromise to the SuDS being progressive.
However, the creation of a more sustainable solution to prevent this on-going damage - would also result in damage. The delivery of a sustainable solution would mean that the excavation for the pond would have to be largely dry. To achieve this a large quantity of silty water would be discharged and dispersed into the Cole Steam and eastern part of the Pevensey Levels.
Against a background where in any event the proposed development will create Damage to an SAC, RAMSAR and SSI site, it appears that the only solution is to refuse outline planning permission for Policy BEX9 - Land off Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill.

There is a fundamental error in suggesting that the proposed development of c 160 residential dwellings on the land off Spindlewood Drive is necessary in order for RDC to meet its target of 3700 dwellings in the Bexhill area by 2028.

RDC's Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory document dated 1 April 2018, indicates in Appendix 7 that given the draft DaSA proposals, the Bexhill residual target of 720 will be exceeded by 17 dwellings.

However, the provision of 737 dwellings only includes a projection of 284 small site windfall dwellings over the period 1/4/2018 - 31/3/2028 (para 2.39 Figure 10). Given that this figure of 284 is exactly the same as shown in Para 2.31 Figure 8 for the period 1/4/2018-31/3/2023 for small site permissions, this infers that RDC do not expect ANY further small site permissions after 31/3/2023 (presumably because of the effects of DaSA being implemented).

This is surely disingenuous, false and illogical..

Developers do not stop developing small sites because of a political initiative such as DaSA. They will continue to seek out development opportunities and implement them.
It would seem totally appropriate therefore to assume that small site permissions will continue at their historic average of 58 (as per Figure 3 Para 2.5) for the period 2023 - 2028. Even if the reduced average assumed by RDC of 42 per annum were assumed, this would increase the developable sites (10 year supply) in Figure 10 for small site permissions from 284 to 494 (ie an increase of 210 dwelling).
Given that the majority of small site permissions take place in the Bexhill area, this implies a considerable overshoot of dwellings required for the Bexhill area of 3700.

Similarly, RDC are assuming no large site windfalls (6+ dwellings) will occur once DaSA has been approved and implemented (see para 2.4 of RDC's Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory document dated 1 April 2018).
This is also disingenuous and illogical. Smaller developers will continue to seek out opportunities to develop such sites throughout the period 2023-2028 and some sort of allowance should thus be included even if at a lower rate than has been seen in the recent past. A figure of at least 20 such dwellings should be included in RDC's future projections for the period 2023-2028 giving an increased projection of 100 extra dwellings.

Consequently, the need to develop the Spindlewood site is rendered redundant and should not be considered given the highly sensitive ecological features of this site being so close to the Pevensey Levels with potential serious detrimental effects to this RAMSAR, SSSI and SAC site and contrary to the Habitats Regulations.

There are far more preferable and appropriate sites throughout the Bexhill area as already identified in the DaSA document that have little or no potential prejudicial ecological impact.

Object on the following grounds.
1) Access to the site via Meads Road, Cooden Sea Road and the A259 is untenable. It is not wide enough for two cars let alone lorries. Access needs to be from Barnhorn Road and use existing pathways.
2) Environmentally the site will either increase the chance of flooding ,even with the Pond, or in remove so much water that the area will dry up and the remaining trees die. The council has TPO s on many trees in the area but with the recent felling of many of these the ancient forest of the area is being lost. I also question the impact on the Pevensey Levels. The loss of habitat for flora and fauna will be immense.
3) Services There will be increase pressure on all services, water, sewage, gas and electric. There is not enough space in the local Primary School or at the doctors. The Secondary Students will have to travel away creating even more traffic on the A259 and Little Common Roundabout.
4) Traffic. There is already a major problem at Little Common Roundabout that has not been addressed. The extra 1000 plus movements a day from this development will cause further delays and congestion on Cooden Sea Road and the A259.
Overall the development takes and gives nothing to the area. I question the need for this development as there is already a large development just to the North of Little Common, this has not yet been developed at its impacts need to be determined before any other is allowed.

This site is within the Pevensey Levels SAC, SSSI, Ramsar Hydrological Catchment. The risks to the Pevensey Levels of polluted surface run-off from a Spindlewood development are considerable. It has not been demonstrated that even a well-engineered SUDS will guarantee that flooding of the Levels with polluted water will never occur. Failure of the SUDS would seriously damage the eco-systems of the SSSI/Ramsar wetlands and leave RDC open to litigation because the Ramsar wetlands are internationally recognised.
Any outline planning application for development next to such a sensitive site must be wholeheartedly approved by the Environment Agency and Natural England. This is not the case with the current outline planning application; the Environment Agency in particular has raised major objections which must be overcome before any outline planning application can even be considered. Even if mitigation proposals for the SUDS could be considered feasible, these would have to be regularly monitored and maintained for the lifetime of the development - and that cannot be guaranteed.
BEX9 should never have been considered a possibility for development because it's a local authority's duty to protect the sensitive areas for which it has responsibility.
BEX9 should be removed from the DaSA Local Plan.

The plan has failed to address the following:
The issue of the increase in traffic volumes, including noise and air pollution around the site affecting Barnhorn Road and the narrowness of the entrance/exit onto the A259 at Barnhorn Manor.

The potential dangers of the access site entrance being so close to the "S" bend heading west and the problems that local residents adjacent to and opposite will experience in accessing and exiting their drives.

Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are totally unsuitable for very heavy traffic volumes (some of which are unadopted) that would occur as a direct result of the Spindlewood site development.

Ecology and the Pevensey Levels

Mitigation of potential adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via water borne pollution will not work and will fail very quickly.

Such a situation would be a breach of the Habitats Regulations and a contravention of the People over Wind Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) judgement established quite recently in Ireland.

There should never be any development on a site so close to a RAMSAR wetlands region that could adversely affect that Special Area of Conservation.

Information in recent report by Aspect Ecology/Herringtons is flawed and does no demonstrate suitable mitigation of risks to the Pevensey Levels.
the SuDs system proposed has not been sufficiently tested and does not take sufficient account of seasonality and changing climate levels.
It has yet to be proved that the Pevensey Levels would not suffer damage in perpetuity as a direct result of the proposed development.

RR/2017/1705 DaSA Part II Policy BEX9 (Spindlewood)
I periodically travel along the A259 mostly on public transport, very occasionally by car. I moved to Little Common 4 years ago and in this space of time I'm alarmed about the increase of traffic which now exists.
The new Rosewood housing estate will cause addition tailbacks along the A259 resulting in poisonous car emissions polluting the air. Why has RDC never mentioned/addressed this issue recently?
Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive are totally unsuitable for heavy traffic. I frequently cycle in both directions of Meads Avenue, with cars parked in the middle of the road waiting to go up or down, and with cars directly behind me. It makes cycling extremely hazardous. Rat suns will be crated making it extremely difficult for pedestrian to walk along Maple Walk and Avenue where there no pavements

RR/2017/1705 DaSA Part II Policy BEX9 (Spindlewood)
The Pevensey Levels SAC/Ramsar has been identified as being potentially susceptible to alterations in hydrology by new development, and the mitigation measures for above development have been identified as necessary. The counter information supplied by developer claims risks have been satisfactorily addressed. Does RDC have neutral, professional expertise on board who can advise on technical scientific issues with regards to the Pevensey Levels? I suspect not or the planning application RR/2017/1705/P would never have been included in the DaSA framework and listed therein as BEX9 (Spindlewood). RDC must withdraw BEX9 from the DaSA on the grounds the land is totally unsuitable for building estates on and must be protected especially now with all the stark warnings about climate change and effect this will have on our coasts.

RR/2017/1705/P DaSA Part II Policy BEX9 (Spindlewood)
As a result of the CJEU April 2018 ruling regarding when 'mitigation measures' should be considered, RDC have left themselves vulnerable to being legally challenged due to their non-compliance with statutory regulations. I strongly object to RDC acceptance and consideration given to untimely mitigation measures submitted by the developer for site BEX9 (Spindlewood) without giving due care and attention to the environmental issues raised by local residents and the harmful effects this development will cause, both in terms of ecology and sustainable housing. My bungalow backs onto the proposed site and garden gets waterlogged in heavy rain.

I strongly object to the proposed development on land off Spindlewood Drive (BX119).
It is not a question of making changes; the proposal is flawed in many respects and no planning permission should be given to any development on that site. Many objections have already been submitted by local residents and none have been satisfactorily answered. Rather District Council should not be continuing to support and promote the Spindlewood site in DaSA Part 2.

TRAFFIC

-The proposed access roads-Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are totally unsuitable for the additional traffic that would be generated both during construction and forever thereafter.
-The impact on Cooden Sea Road would be dangerous and intolerable.
-Any development would inevitably produce a "rat-run" effect as traffic (including the increased amount generated by the Rosewood Park development already under construction) would seek to avoid the increased congestion and delays on the Little Common roundabout.
-The impact on Air and Noise pollution has never been mentioned throughout the DaSA documents and this will be significant and must be taken into account.
-The proposed access onto the A259 will produce a real danger to all traffic entering or exiting, and to through traffic.

This application should be absolutely and permanently refused.

I strongly object to development on land off Spindlewood Drive (BX119).
It is not a question of making changes; the proposal is flawed in many respects and no planning permission should be given to any development on that site. Many objections have already been submitted by local residents and none have been satisfactorily answered. Rother District Council should not be continuing to support and promote the Spindlewood site in DaSA Part 2.

ECOLOGY & THE PEVENSEY LEVELS

The proposed site is long established farmland dating back to the Doomsday Book and still actively farmed.
This should not be altered.
There should never be any development on a site that is so close to the RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC wetlands region that is the Pevensey Levels; a hugely important and Nationally renowned Special Area of Conservation which will be put at risk.
I am fully aware of submissions and objections made in considerable detail by persons who are much more qualified than I am but I fully support them.
Totally inadequate and misleading responses have been made by the applicants and their agents in matters intended but failing to mitigate adverse effects of water borne pollution.

This application should be absolutely and permanently refused.

All aspects of the allocation have been addressed through the planning submission and it is fully deliverable.
The allocation should reflect the actual application area including land to either side of the access road to Barnhorn Road

The plan is unsound because Policy BEX9 does not enable the delivery of sustainable development.

The allocation of this site off Spindlewood Drive will add unacceptable traffic to Maple Walk and Meads Road and add to congestion further afield. I am not qualified to judge this impact in technical transportation terms, but the impact on residential amenity makes the proposal unsustainable.

The mitigation of the development requires a SUDS scheme which, in order to control long-term impacts on water quality in the adjacent Pevensey Levels will require a long term management plan and responsibilities. This is unusual in a multi-occupier residential development, and it is difficult to see how the protection of sensitive receptors in the levels can be guaranteed in the long term. This too makes the proposal unsustainable.

The plan can be made sound, in this regard, by deleting Policy BEX9.

It is recognised that Rather District Council has, hitherto, failed to achieve its targets for its five year supply of Housing land. This is in large measure because a high proportion of planned development in the Bexhill area 9 (the largest proportionate supplier of land in the District) has been dependent upon the construction of the Bexhill Link Road which was not finished until 2015 with consequent housing sites adjacent subject to delayed planning applications and on site starts.

The Submission DaSA seeks to redress the issue through the allocation of both pre-existing and new sites. BEX 9 is a new site. The Submission DaSA as drafted includes an allocation of land for more homes than are required to deliver the target. However, it can also be noted that the figures exclude and contribution from "Large Windfall Sites". Historically such sites have provided an average of 48 homes per year. Rather District Council contends that if they were included then there would be double counting in the figures since any windfall sites would be already in the DaSA preferred site allocation. This is inaccurate. Firstly, the same argument could have been used for the extant Local Plan DaSA, yet the evidence directly contradicts this, and, secondly, a recent planning appeal decision for a site excluded from both the extant Local Plan and the Submission DaSA has resulted in the grant of planning permission for approximately 40 homes (approx because it is an Outline consent) that are not included in the Submission DaSA figure ( Ref: APP/U1430/W/17/3191063).

The conclusion, from the commentary above is that the housing contribution to the Rother target from BEX 9 is not necessary for it to achieve its target. BEX 9 is the most sensitive ecological and environmental site in the DaSA being adjacent (60m) to the UK, European and Internationally protected Site of Special Scientific Interest,
Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar (the Levels). The BEX 9 site slopes directly into and onto the Levels and any uncontrolled pollution or contamination will have an unlawful damaging effect.. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Court, People over Wind and Sweetman v Collite and Teoranta (April 2018) has defined the need for any proposals for development that would affect or harm SSSI, SACs and Ramsars to be fully researched through comprehensive investigations and site testing before any decision can be reached that shows, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no damage will be caused by the proposed development to the protected Levels. Such work has not been carried out for BEX 9, risks are high because of the geographical and topographical relationships between BEX 9 and the Levels, and suggestions for mitigation made as part of the
undecided planning application for 160 homes on the BEX 9 site demonstrate unequivocally that such mitigation would magnify and increase risks, rather than reduce them.

With such sensitivities concerning the protected Levels, the lack of need for the BEX 9 homes to be included in the Rother Targets and the defined risks that any development poses to increase local pollution and contamination (see for ref the Neighbour Letter dated 13th November 2018 on Rother District Council website for the planning application RR/2017/1705/P "Response and Critique of applicant's report to inform an Appropriate Assessment) and it will be clear that BEX 9 should be omitted from the Submission DaSA and that the adjustment to the Local Plan development boundary to henceforth include site BEX 9 should also be removed from that DaSA as being no longer necessary, desirable or appropriate.

Policy BEX 9 should be removed from the DaSA. It's inclusion in the Submission version of DaSA has been undertaken without the necessary and legally required investigations required under the Habitats Regulations and reinforced in unequivocal terms by the April 2018 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Court in the matter of People Over Wind and Sweetman v Collite Teoranta (hereinafter referred to as People Over
Wind) (C-323/17). Rother District Council has failed to:

- prepare in advance of any decision to include BEX 9 in the DaSA, an Appropriate Assessment that demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that development of the BEX 9 site (land off Spindlewood Drive) will have no harmful impacts on the nearby UK, European and internationally protected Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar (collectively here termed "the Levels") which are just 60m from the BEX 9 boundary.
- has included BEX 9 in the Submission version of DaSA when it knows full well that both Natural England and the Environment Agency, along with many others within the approx. 1,500 formal objections to planning Application RR/2017/1705/P (the BEX 9 site) have expressed major environmental and ecological concerns about the inherent risks that development would introduce to the Levels in direct contradiction of extant and DaSA, Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (para 118) policies intended to enhance protection of such areas.
- The Spindlewood site in BEX 9 is probably the most ecologically and environmentally sensitive area in the entire Bexhill area of Rother District Council in terms:
- geographically, of its location adjacent to the protected Levels,
- its topography, comprising part of a funnel valley for the Cole Brook which accumulates surface water exits directly into the Levels, and,
- its surface water catchment which follows the topographical features from high ground to the north and is accumulated as it drains towards and into the Cole Brook and thence via very low tying and frequently flooded or waterlogged meadows into the watercourses of the protected Levels. It has been submitted that mitigation measures could remove contamination and pollution risks if development of BEX 9 took place.
However such mitigation measures must be shown to be effective, reliable, timely, guaranteed to be delivered and preserved as effective over the long term lifetime of a development. Such guarantees have not been produced for BEX 9. It is not appropriate to assume such guarantees will become available, and to do so would be contrary to law as per People over Wind.
- as part of planning application RR/2017/1705/P (the BEX 9 site) the applicants have failed through three attempts to date to offer satisfactory guarantees that the Levels will be unharmed by a development on the Spindlewood site. Indeed, each such attempt by the applicants has resulted in greater risks. Their efforts to mitigate have, in fact, resulted in magnified and multiplied risk consequences - all as set out cogently in the document published on the Rother District Council planning website on 13th November 2018 as a Neighbour letter with the legend "Response and Critique of applicants report to inform and Appropriate Assessment". What was originally indicated by the applicants to be a simple field pond form of Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) could not be built, would fail to function effectively and would result in pollution of the Levels. Later ideas from the
applicant have been equally inappropriate to the site and its topography. Further, the applicants now say the Swales they would wish to construct to carry the surface water to the SUDS filtration system would be 3m at the narrowest and 9 meters at the widest. Not only does this indicate an expectation of huge water volumes but it aIso creates dangers for families and residents of any approved scheme.
BEX 9 MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE DASA.

The current plans under consideration for BEX9 (Spindlewood) and being considered by RDC under planning application RR/2017/1705/P include vehicular access from both Barnhorn Road (A259) at the entrance to Barnhorn Manor and from Spindlewood Drive.

Such dual access invites an immediate "rat run" situation for traffic heading North along Cooden Sea Road and wishing to go west towards Eastbourne via the A259 and vice versa. The Applicant for the development site has suggested mitigation measures to counteract this situation by proposing a more tortuous route through the development site and signs at the right hand turn out of Spindlewood Drive into Maple Walk indicating that this is an un-adopted road.

These proposals are laughable and will have no impact on driver behaviour whatsoever.

Drivers will seek whatever route they deem most attractive to them to reduce their journey times and to most drivers avoiding Cooden Sea Road and the Little Common roundabout in the am peak and Barnhorn Road and the Little Common roundabout at the pm peak will be too enticing to ignore.

This rat run will thus cause immense problems along Maple Walk in particular especially the section between Antrona Close and Old Harrier Close (c 100 mtrs) that is a single track road with no pavements. Pedestrians and cyclists will be at great risk and there must be the real possibilities of serious accidents along this stretch of road. This road was never intended for high volumes of traffic and is an un-adopted road with serious implications for the local residents to have to pay for any upgrades to its surface as a result of the vastly increased traffic flows that will result from the rat running traffic. I estimate that Maple Walk and Maple Avenue (both un-adopted) will see traffic flows of between 600-1000 vehicles per week day).

Further problems will ensue at the entrance/exit onto Barnhorn Road via the existing Barnhorn Manor drive. This road is too narrow to provide a satisfactory turning point onto a major trunk road (although Highways England say that they are prepared to "relax their rules in this case").

Furthermore, no regard has been given to the approx. 12 properties that will be adjacent to the ghost lane that will be provided for traffic wishing to turn right into the new estate. Occupants of these properties will be put at considerable risk if they wish to turn across the ghost lane either entering or leaving their properties.

Rother District Council (RDC) have yet to provide a suitable and complete Appropriate Assessment (AA) form to the relevant Government Statutory Agencies (the Environment Agency and Natural England) regarding Policy BEX9 (Spindlewood).

This assessment is required under the terms of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling, in the matter of People Over Wind and Sweetman v Collite Teoranta (C-323/17),

Amongst other details the AA should include the following
1. Details of how the attenuation pond(s) and the associated SuDS will be constructed and maintained thereafter (in perpetuity) so that no harm can ever befall the Pevensey Levels.
2 A detailed maintenance strategy for the SuDS to identify the company who will maintain the SuDS and how this maintenance would continue in the event that the company failed.
3, Detailed analysis and measurements of the water table in and around the attenuation pond(s) throughout the winter of 2018 and the early spring months of 2019 so that the depth of the pond(s) can be established.
4. Details of how the silt resulting from the construction of the pond(s) will be disposed of and how the silt resulting from ongoing maintenance of the pond(s) will be disposed of to ensure that no damage can ever be inflicted on the Pevensey Levels as a result.

The policy plan with respect to bex9 (site ref BX116) is substantially flawed because

1) it fails to adequately protect the Pevensey levels in both the short and long term. Proposed mitigation strategies not being in any way sufficient to ensure that the levels are safeguarded (for which the council has a legal duty)
2 )Traffic issues have not been properly addressed.
A) A259 -further overcrowding on an already busy and dangerous road which has been closed at least 3 times over the past year because of serious accidents (noise, pollution and risk of accident making this development undesirable).
B) Rat runs. This is already a problem on certain roads in the area (sluce lane and others to the north of the A259) The A259 is the only road capable of taking reasonable volumes of traffic (including emergency vehicles) between Eastbourne and Bexhill/Hastings. When this road is congested (or closed) traffic is forced onto side roads creating "rat runs" through unsuitable roads (some with significant vulnerable populations -children/elderly -and no pavement /poor visibility) The proposed development with the connecting road between the A259 and Spindlewood drive (and from there to Bexhill/ Hastings via Cooden sea road or maple walk) would take this problem to a whole new level with significant risk of accidents (an entirely foreseeable risk perhaps opening the council to possible legal action in the future?)

RDC has not taken CJEU judgment of People over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (April 2018) into account in connection with the site's immediate proximity to the Pevensey Levels. Therefore, before this site (BEX9) can be included in the DaSA local plan, a full appropriate assessment must be carried out. RDC cannot assume that an appropriate assessment will automatically be approved by a statutory authority.

The Environment Agency has submitted a list of objections (20 November 2018) requiring the proposed development off Spindlewood Drive (BEX9) to be re-evaluated and groundwater levels to be fully monitored to take account of seasonal fluctuations in order to evaluate the effects of groundwater displacement on the hydrological regime for the SAC/Ramsar site (Pevensey Levels). This has not yet been done.

The Environment Agency has stated that the SuDS scheme proposed by Aspect Ecology/Herringtons is not sufficient and that many specific improvements are required. The Environment Agency has also expressed considerable concern re potential damage to the Pevensey levels.

Due to the concerns expressed by the Environment Agency and Natural England (the two statutory authorities involved) and the necessity for an appropriate assessment to be provided by RDC and accepted by these two agencies before any planning approval can be given for BEX9, it is clear that this site cannot possibly be included in the current DaSA.

The absence of a valid appropriate assessment means that the inclusion of BEX9 cannot conform to the deliverability test required In DaSA land allocation for this particular site. It should, therefore, be removed from the DaSA.

I enclose 4 representation forms in respect of various representations that I have on your Policy BEX9, The Spindlewood Drive site. This site is also the subject of a current Planning Application with Reference RR/2017/1705/P.

My first representation concerns the surface water drainage of the site through a SuDS system to an attenuation pond. I have submitted an 8 page report accompanied by 5 Figures. I have therefore attached a paper copy of that report to my representation and I would want them to be considered together:

1. No sufficient Appropriate Assessment has been lodged in respect of BEX9 where the attenuation pond is within 60 metres and the housing is within 175 metres of the Designated area and the pond has to be constructed substantially within ground water to which the Environment Agency have said no infiltration must be allowed. The Pevensey Levels are a Special Area Of Conservation (SAC), RAMSAR site and SSSI designated under the Habitats Directive.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that the Habitats Directive requires a full Appropriate Assessment of the effects on European sites listed in the Directive. Reference the case of People over Wind and Sweetman vs Coillte Teoranta in the Republic of Ireland.

2. When the attenuation pond water level is depleted after a few days without rainfall but plenty of wind to dry the pond through evaporation, as can occur at any time; but the ground water is still high the buoyancy thrust would be considerably greater than the dead weight remaining in the pond itself. The result with up to 3.8 tonnes of buoyancy thrust would be to lift and deform the geotextile membrane at the base of the pond over up to % of the pond's width. The initial silt trap at the pond would be eliminated and totally compromised. The next significant rainfall event would result in overtopping the ponds spillway and possibly backing up of run-off in the lower housing area and overland flow could occur. Untreated flood water would enter the Cole Stream and thence the Pevensey Levels.

A considerable depth of additional ballast would be required within the pond geotextile membrane to achieve a satisfactory equilibrium between weight and buoyancy. The effective invert level would become very close to era ADD. With the requisite weight of ballast and the pond full of water the complete pond structure would probably weigh more than 6 tonnes per square metre (counterweight, soil/gravel and water). Over parts of the pond area the bearing weight would be assymetrical. The pond structure would need to sit on a very firm base to disperse this weight to whatever the sub strata could bear. The bottom of the construction would therefore be well below the general water level of the watercourses in the Pevensey Levels (which the drainage board aim to keep at 1.0 to 1.3 metres above Ordnance datum) and below the water level of the Cole Stream.

The operation of pumping to a depth of below Ordnance Datum would be bound to disturb the hydraulic regime of the Cole Stream and the eastern Pevensey Levels generally once pumping reaches below the normal level of the watercourses in the Pevensey Levels. A back flow in the water courses of the eastern Levels is certain.

ATTACHED REPORT:

Second Report on an Insufficiently ballasted Attenuation Pond
(issued after study of the topographic survey)

Spindlewood Development site - SUDS - Bexhill

by Geoffrey P Lawson C. Eng. MICE. November 2018

Executive summary

1. The lowest level of the Pond field is about 2.65 metres above Ordnance Survey datum (AOD) of mean sea level. The field rises at a slope of ~4.5% to a height of 9.2 metres AOD (paragraphs 2- 3).
2. The Cole Stream which runs down the lower edge of the field flows full in the winter and overflows from time to time. There is evidence of a hydraulic gradient within the ground water at the end of the winter when ground water levels are replenished, of around 2.9% within the ground. The ground water level therefore rises to between 5.58M and 6.90M ADD at the top of the pond field where the actual ground level is 9.2 metres AOD. The winter ground water level would therefore be 2.3 metres below the surface which is consistent with British Geological Survey data. (paragraphs 7-10)
3. The pond with a base invert level of from 3.00 to 3.18 metres AOD would have to be constructed almost entirely within the ground water level. See Figures 2 and 3.
4. A 500mm clay lining above an impermeable geotextile membrane as proposed would not be sufficient to withstand the winter ground water buoyancy pressure. Construction in this manner as proposed would have the result that in the first instance of high ground water in the winter the pond base would fail, become deformed and the pond would lose capacity resulting in flooding of untreated water to the Pevensey Levels. This may only gradually be apparent. See figure 4
5. To properly ballast the pond with a sufficient clay and rock counterweight would require up to 5 Tonnes of counterweight per square metre of pond area in a deep excavation. The pond would require a very firm base to sit the pond on to avoid further movement and consequent deformation of the pond and tearing of the impermeable membrane due to low strength substrata. The excavation would require de-watering with consequent risks to the Pevensey levels from a very large quantity of silty water. (Paragraphs 30 - 31).
6. Comparison with the Ashridge Court site is entirely spurious on account of the relative size, very much lower level and nearness to the Designation area of the Pevensey Levels. (paragraphs 34-35)
7. I conclude that in this case and at this location the depth of construction required for the pond if properly ballasted will cause major disturbance to the water regime of at least the eastern part of the Pevensey Levels during construction;
8. the effects on the watercourses and fluvial ecosystem of the eastern part of the
Pevensey Levels SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI would be disastrous. No amount of
additional engineering could mitigate these effects sufficiently to achieve 'no
adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels'.
9. The development of the land adjacent to Spindlewood Drive should not be
considered any further. The application for Outline Planning permission should be
refused.

Existing ground levels.

1. This report on the Spindlwood Drive SuDs pond has been prepared after studying the topographic survey of the site at 1:500 scale carried out by Messrs Landtech Surveys on 13th September 2018 and the letter from Messrs Herrington Consultants dated 16th October 2018.
2. The topographic survey covers three traverses across the field in which the pond (or wetland) is to be located and one traverse of part of the upper field in which the lowest housing is to be located. In the field with the pond proposals one travers lies along the bank of the Cole Stream from a point 38 metres south west of the footbridge at Cooden Moat up to the line of the hedgerow between the two fields which is some 115 metres north east of the footbridge. Along the banks of the stream the ground height varies from 2.65 M AOD at the lower end to 4.32 M ADD at the higher end. At the footbridge the ground height is locally 2.36 M ADD.
3. The ground rises towards the north west in the pond field at about 4.5% (the gradient varies from ~ 4.46% to ~4. 7%) to the tree belt at the top of the field which separates it from the static Caravan site above. At this top end of the field the ground height varies from 8.1 M ADD to 9.2M ADD with the higher ground at the northern end.
4. A new analysis has been made in this report of the effects of these ground levels on the SUDS drainage system in the Spindlewood site and brief details are set out below. Information on the hydraulic conditions on land adjacent to the site has also been used and this is also described in this paper.
5. Figure 1 shows the relevant part of the layout plan of the Spindlewood site and the location of two cross sections through the site. The footpath between the footbridge on the Cole Stream at Cooden Moat and the caravan park is taken as a base line and cross section X-X. The positions of the other cross section where it crosses the Cole Stream is shown relative to the base line X-X, thus Y- Y is 90 metres away to the north. These sections are shown on Figure 1. Section X - X and Y - Y have been named to easily distinguish them from A - A and B - B used in the Herrington report. A convention has been adopted in this report to refer to the right-hand side of the pond as north and the left-hand side as south and to refer to the edge nearest the Cole stream as the front of the pond and the edge nearest the caravan site as the back of the pond.

6. Herrington's assumed Ground water level. At a meeting on 29th August 2018 the
Developer undertook to look at a 'worst case' scenario for the pond as an alternative to undertaking ground water monitoring over the winter period of 2018 - 2019. The winter ground water level is however assumed by Herrington to be ~3.0m AOD and flat. For some unexplained reason this water table estimate is lcm above the water level of 2.9 metres ADD found in the Cole Stream on the survey day (13th September 2018, at the end of a very dry summer). The existing height of the bank of the stream is shown in the survey to be ~4 metres AOD and the stream is known to flow full and occasionally over full in the winter. A flat water table would result in very little if any movement in the ground water. In 7. 1 of the Herrington letter variable green field run-off rates are shown in the event of rainstorms of different return periods ranging from 1 in 2 years to 1 in 100 years (i.e. of different lengths and intensity of rain storm). As well as overland runoff this implies differing hydraulic gradients to push the rainwater through clayey soil into the stream at differing rates. A ground water level of ~3 metres across the site is emphatically NOT a 'worst case'.

7. Winter ground water levels. The Cole Stream lies within a distinct valley with sides at a gradient of 4.5% to the North-west (within the site) at cross section Y - Y and about 3.1% to the South-east side towards Maple Walk. The ground water in the valley of the Cole Stream percolates slowly to the stream through silty clay soil. The fields act like a sponge during wet weather absorbing rainfall in the ground and only allowing run-off at a slow rate. For run-off to occur there must be a hydraulic gradient in the ground meaning that ground water levels further up the sides of the valley will be higher than the stream water level. This can easily happen without necessarily causing flooding below dependant on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. The hydraulic conductivity of the clay overlying the site is tow and therefore in the winter the hydraulic gradient may be relatively steep.

8. Local evidence of the hydraulic gradient can be found on the eastern side of the stream in the woodland surrounding Cooden Moat and the woodland at the back of properties in Old Harrier Close which abuts the site to the east. These areas are waterlogged in winter and are consistent with a winter hydraulic gradient of at least 0.029 (or 2. 9%). Further evidence is found in Hazelwood Close immediately to the north seen in Figure 1 where the lower parts of the back gardens get flooded after rainfall in winter. This has reportedly occurred several times over the last 11 years (for example in the winter of 2013/2014 which was very wet for 5 consecutive months). At these times ground water enters a garage approximately 13 metres away from the stream and only some 80cm above the top of the bank. This suggests a winter hydraulic gradient of 0.06 (or 6%) which is relatively steep.

9. In this report it has been assumed that the lesser gradient is generally applicable and a winter hydraulic gradient of 0.029 (2.9%) has been used for this investigation. It is also observed that in wet winters the stream is running full or nearly full. This means that at section X-X the ground water level at the top of the field at the end of a wet winter will be 5.58M AOD (where the ground level is about 8. 1M). i.e. 2.5 metres below ground level.

10. At section Y - Y where the ground is about 8.85 M AOD the ground water level at the end of a wet winter will be about 6.9M AOD. i.e. 2.2 metres below ground level.

11. In summer the hydraulic gradient and ground water levels may be significantly lower.

12. The level of the attenuation pond. The water surface in the pond will vary with weather conditions but with the present arrangement as shown in Herrington report it will always basically be horizontal. The levels of the attenuation pond as now proposed are given in the following table.

13. Table 1 Attenuation pond section levels as proposed

Table 1 included which can be seen here:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31276


14. There is a requirement for no infiltration to be allowed between the pond with only partially treated estate run-off water and the ground water The pond and its clay lining is proposed to be wrapped in an impermeable geotextile membrane. Herrington suggest lining the pond with 500mm of clay inside the impermeable geotextile membrane. Where the pond is below the winter ground water level there will be ground water buoyancy forces to be considered. This 500mm clay layer would take the invert of the deepest sections of the pond down to 2.5M ADD thus increasing the ground water buoyancy thrust on the base.

15. For the pond/wetland to contain reed beds and other suitable flora to treat the run-off water the invert in the low flow channels would be at a level of 3.18 metres allowing for a depth of growing medium and gravel below the maximum water depth of 500 mm. There is also the matter of a deeper section to allow for any residual silt to drop out before the exit via the flow control device. This invert level of 3.18 metres is well below the winter ground water level at this point.

16. Because the pond would be within the anticipated winter ground water level, ground water would be exerting an upward buoyancy thrust on the pond's base geotextile liner. In the winter this buoyancy thrust could be more than 3 tonnes per square metre at the back of the pond. This is due to the difference in level between the invert (3.0 metres) and the level where the reprofiled bank breaks above the anticipated winter ground water level of 6.4 metres AOD shown on figure 3, and the fact that a cubic metre of water requires a displacement of 1 tonne.

17. Figure 2 shows diagrammatically the section X -X which passes through the south side of the pond more or less on the line of the exiting footpath running between the footbridge at Cooden Moat and the Caravan site. The Figure 2 is prepared with an exaggerated vertical scale with a ratio of 10 vertical to 1 horizontal. This is typically done in Engineering diagrams to enable vertical features to be more easily appreciated. At this section the pond configuration is proposed to be comprised of marginal terraces which are designed to flood infrequently as shown in the 'Wetland layout plan' attached to the Herrington letter. The deeper sections of the pond do not feature in this southern part. These terraces will therefore dry out quite quickly. It should be remembered that wind especially, evaporates water from the pond surface more rapidly that it evaporates ground water for the simple reason that pond water is exposed whilst ground water is covered.

18. The pond normal level after only light rain or drizzle would be ~4.18M ADD (After a storm this might rise to 4.68M). Allowing for the soil and gravel growing medium and the 500 mm clay lining the pond base level and enclosing geotextile membrane would be 3.18 metres. In these circumstances the dead weight of the pond structure would be ~ 1.7 tonnes per square metre. The ground water buoyancy thrust could reach a force of 2.2 tonnes per square metre at the back of the pond where ground water levels would reach 5.4 M AOD as indicated on Figure 2. So here the pond's weight would be insufficient to counter the ground water force in a wet winter and the membrane would be deformed by ground water buoyancy forcing it up. About 40% of the ponds width is likely to be affected at this southern end of the pond.

19. Figure 3 shows the configuration of the pond at section Y-Y. Again this section is shown diagrammatically with the same exaggerated vertical scale. At Y - Y the ground level at the back of the pond is 8.2 M AOD and the winter ground water level is 6.4M AOD. The pond levels are as set out in Table 1 ranging from the extreme TWL of 5.18M to the Silt trap bottom of 3.00M AOD. Rainwater would enter the pond via the initial filter strip at 'A' and leave the system via the outfall and flow control device at 'B'.

20. At times when the pond water level is depleted after a few days without rainfall but plenty of wind to dry the pond through evaporation, as can occur at any time even in winter or early spring; but the ground water is still high the buoyancy thrust would be considerably greater than the dead weight remaining in the pond itself. The combination of a very small amount of residual water say 50mm, 300mm wet soil, 200mm gravel and 500mm of clay would weigh about 1.75 tonnes per square metre. The result with up to 3.8 tonnes of buoyancy thrust would be to lift and deform the geotextile membrane at the base of the pond over up to % of the pond's width.

21. The ground water buoyancy per square metre on the geotextile membrane with 500mm of enclosed clay lining is 3.2 Tonnes psm at the very back, 3.8 Tonnes psm at the silt trap, 2.6 Tonnes on the low flow channels and 2.8 Tonnes at the back of the final basin.

22. When not holding storm water and subject to the evaporating effect of wind the pond dead weight including the residual water and the 500mm clay liner would be 1.4 Tonnes psm at the very back, 2.0 Tonnes psm in the silt trap, ~1.70 Tonnes psm in the low flow channels and 2.25 tonnes in the final basin area including the water.

23. The result of the imbalance between dead weight and winter ground water buoyancy force at section Y - Y is shown in Figure 4. This figure is again diagrammatic with an exaggerated vertical scale as indicated. A new equilibrium between dead weight and buoyancy force would be established by nature. The effect would be to deform the geotextile membrane and push the base of the pond up substantially for up to % of the pond's width as shown in Figure 5.

24. Figure 5 shows that the overall capacity of the pond would be reduced to less than half, even considering the 500mm of freeboard in the design.

25. The overall effect of lifting and deformation of the geotextile membrane is shown in Figure 5. More than half of the pond area could be affected and the hydraulic capacity of the system would be severely reduced. Importantly the initial silt trap would be eliminated and totally compromised. The next significant rainfall event would result in overtopping the ponds spillway and possibly backing up of run-off in the lower housing area and overland flow could occur. Untreated flood water would enter the Cole Stream and thence the Pevensey Levels. In addition the heave and deformation of the membrane would create a strong likelihood of tearing of the membrane and deformation of the clay lining which might allow ground water to enter the pond further eroding its capacity.

26. An insufficiently ballasted pond would certainly lead to a failure of the pond structure as soon as the ground water level rose and the ground water pressure reached a buoyancy level exceeding the ballast weight within the geotextile liner. This is shown in Figure 5. The result would be an overtopping of the spillway and possibly the bund enclosing the pond and a failure due to backing up of run-off in the Swale. Such an event would be a disaster for the Cole Stream and the Pevensey Levels.

27. Ballasting the pond. Additional weight would need to be placed within the liner. This additional ballast could be a mixture of rocks and clay. The rocks would need to be kept away from the liner itself lest any sharp edges cause a perforation of the liner in time. The whole pond impermeable liner would need to be lined with clay with rocks in the middle. Two tonnes of this mixture would require more than 1 metre depth. This additional depth would of course give rise to further ground water displacement of a tonne. It is likely that 2.5 metres depth of the rock clay mixture would be required within the pond geotextile membrane to achieve a satisfactory equilibrium between weight and buoyancy. The effective invert level would become very close to zero AOD. To contain all of this within one layer of geotextile membrane would require in excess of 6750 square metres of membrane.

28. Weight of the pond when full. With the requisite weight of ballast and the pond full of water the complete pond structure would weigh more than 6 tonnes per square metre (counterweight, soil/gravel and up to 1 tonne of water per square metre). Over parts of the pond area the bearing weight would be assymetrical as there would be greater weight in some parts of the pond than in other areas. The pond structure would need to sit on a very firm base of consolidated granular material to disperse this weight to whatever the sub strata could bear. The bottom of the construction would therefore be well below the Ordnance datum. This is below the general water level of the watercourses in the Pevensey Levels (which the drainage board aim to keep at 1.0 to 1.3 metres above Ordnance datum) and below the water level of the Cole Stream.

29. De-watering. The construction of a lined pond could only be effectively done in dry conditions. But this has to be done well below ground water level. This would be
impossible without de-watering the site by pumping out the ground water and to avoid an endless hydraulic loop situation, a sheet piled and braced cofferdam would be required down to below the level of the base of construction.

30. Herrington Consulting have estimated that the pond should be 5750 square metres in overall area to allow for future anticipated climate change, intense rainfall and 'urban creep'. To de-water an area of 5750 sq. m. to a depth of ~ 6 metres would require the disposal of a very large volume of muddy and silty water (possibly as much as 20,000 cubic metres). It remains to be decided where this pumped water should be discharged to. A temporary silt trap as suggested by Aspect Ecology, to deal with 20,000 cubic metres of silty discharge water would itself be a major structure. Although a sheet piled cofferdam would keep most water out it would certainly leak and continuous pumping of sitty ingress water would be necessary throughout the construction period.

31. The operation of pumping to a depth of below Ordnance Datum would be bound to disturb the hydraulic regime of the Cote Stream and the eastern Pevensey Levels
generally once pumping reaches the invert level of the cofferdam which would be below the normal level of the watercourses in the Pevensey Levels. A back flow in the water courses of the eastern Levels is certain.

32. In other locations and circumstances this could be done, but in this case and at this location the effects on the watercourses and fluvial ecosystem of the eastern part of the Pevensey Levels SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI would be disastrous. No amount of additional engineering could mitigate these effects sufficiently to achieve 'no adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels'.

33. In the Swales section drawings attached to Herrington's letter the section from C2 to C3 rises at a gradient of 5% which is steeper than the CIRIA recommendations and terracing needed for housing would possibly cause spring lines to develop which may result in ground water contamination.

34. Comparison with the Ashridge Court site circumstances. The Ashridge court site Appeal has been allowed very recently. Comparison of the Ashridge Court site with the Spindlewood Drive site reveals that the two sites are very different in respect of the SuDs proposals. The Inspector's report notes at 35 'An Appropriate Assessment should be proportionate to the case'. In the case of Ashridge Court, the site is 1.5 ha in extent with a total of 31 dwellings only is proposed. The site is 430 metres from the nearest point of the Pevensey Levels designation area. The SuDs attenuation pond for the Ashridge Court development has an invert level of +23.44M AOD and ground water is not higher than +21.5M AGO (i.e. 2 metres below the invert). The pond will be about 20 metres above the Pevensey Levels.

35. In the case of the Spindlewood Drive site the area is 8.07 ha in extent and the number of dwellings proposed is 160. The site is only about 30 metres from the Pevensey Designation area and the SuDS attenuation pond is proposed with an invert level of 3.00 - 3.18 metres ADD. The winter ground water level is likely to be up to 6.9M AOD so the pond will have to be constructed on sloping ground almost entirely within the winter ground water. The counterweight and base of the pond will have to be constructed below ground water level in an area that wilt require de-watering by pumping. The Pevensey Levels are at a ground level of between 1 and 2 metres ADD so the pond invert is only 1 metre above the Levels. The risks to the water quality and fluvial ecosystems of the Pevensey Levels is a whole order of magnitude greater than is the case with the Ashridge site.

36. Conclusion. I have shown the following;
. If insufficiently ballasted the pond would fail due to deformation of the base within a very few years and possibly in the first winter period when ground water pressure at the back of the pond exceeded the ballast capacity;
. A sufficiently ballasted pond would require a very deep excavation;
. that there are substantial risks of contamination of ground water from failure in the
lining of the pond due to the size of the pond, any deformation of the base due to
differing weights and to ground water;
. the depth of construction required for the pond if properly ballasted will cause major disturbance to the water regime of at least the eastern part of the Pevensey Levels during construction;
. the silt from discharge water during de-watering is a potential major risk to the
Levels;
. For the regraded bank to withstand lateral water pressure will require a substantial
soil engineered retaining structure which in the event of failure of the pond base
would also be likely to fail;
. the pond will require a very firm base to distribute the weight of the structure plus
water to enable the subsoil to bear it without deformation or movement. This will
add to the construction depth required;
. There is a possibility of spring lines developing as a result of terracing of the ground in the upper part of the site. This could give rise to ground water contamination;
. The development of the land adjacent to Spindlewood Drive should not be
Considered any further. The application for Outline Planning permission should be refused.

Figures included:
Figure 1: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31057

Figure 2: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31058

Figure 3: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31059

Figure 4: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31060

Figure 5: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31061

I enclose 4 representation forms in respect of various representations that I have on your Policy BEX9, The Spindlewood Drive site. This site is also the subject of a current Planning Application with Reference RR/2017/1705/P.

My second representation concerns the Barnhorn road access to the Spindlewood Development. This is amplified in a letter of objection and figures a copy of which is enclosed.

1. The development of houses at land off Spindlewood Drive is shown with an access off Barnhorn road in addition to the Spindlewood Drive access. The development relies on this access off Barnhorn road to reduce traffic movements at the Little Common roundabout. There is insufficient space at the existing access off Barnhorn Road within the control of the present applicant to construct the required access to the required adoptable standard.
On the east side of the entrance there is a short fence to bring the side walls up to the back of footway. This fence is within the front garden of No 73 Barnhorn road. It appears that the designer may have measured from the low wall on the west side to the fence on the east side but even this measurement is not more than 12 metres. The geometry of the radius curve requires more than 12 metres width at 3 metres back from the Barnhorn Road kerb.
For the entrance to be of adaptable standard as required by ESCC, the access carriageway would require kerbing on both sides. The kerbs would require concrete haunching, the kerbed edge would normally require a safety strip behind the kerb face of at least 600mm. To construct this roadway with suitable excavation would require working space in addition. Land would be required from the front garden of No 73 to be able to construct the 6 metre radius curve required for this entrance not to impinge on the driveway and footway crossing at No 77 Barnhorn road.

2. The Safety Audit has paid attention to the Farm access road in relation to No 77 Barnhorn road ' s driveway but does not appear to have given similar consideration to the other 11 house drives that will be affected by the right turning lane and ghost island. There are a total of 12 houses with driveways affected by the right turning lane. All of these properties will find that it is considerably more difficult and dangerous to turn right on to Bamhorn road out of their driveways at various times on account of either vehicles standing in the right turning lane, or approaching the right turn lane or obstructing the view of the approaching traffic stream from the left and which they will be attempting to join.
It will only be possible to turn right out of these driveways with significantly increased hazard once this new 'unction to the development is established. It will be doubly dangerous on account of the sharp bend in the road to the west. At the prevailing traffic speed the oncoming traffic will be in a potential collision position with the turning traffic in less than 4 seconds. A very short time for a driver to appreciate the presence of a vehicle manoeuvring out of a driveway and to stop in time without risking a tail end collision with traffic behind.

Planning Application RR/2017/1705/P
Land off Spindlewood Drive - Access only

I have the following additional objections to the new proposals for access to this development off Bamhom road and the Safety Audit.

Moving the estate access eastwards to avoid the driveway of No 77 Barnhorn Road

The drawing T277_37A.DWG appears to show an overall entrance width of more than 12 metres. This is NOT accurate and it will not be possible to build the entrance road to the required standard and dimensions in the actual space available.

The space between the low side walls of the present entrance to Bamhorne Manor farm at their extremity nearest to Barnhorn road is only 11.2 metres between wall faces. The walls are 0.23 metres thick. Thus even if both the walls are demolished the space is no more than 1 1.66 metres. As it seems possible that the applicant's intention would be that only the wall on the east side would be demolished the space would be only 11.43 metres.

On the east side there is a short fence to bring the side walls up to the back of footway. This fence is within the front garden of No 73 Barnhorn road. The fence has also been partially pushed aside by badgers or foxes. It appears that EXIGO may have measured from the low wall on the west side to the fence on the east side but even this measurement is not more than 12 metres. The geometry of the radius curve requires more than 12 metres width at 3 metres back from the Barnhorn Road kerb.

The attached Figure 1 shows a measured drawing of the entrance. From this it can be seen that to get a 6 metre carriageway in the entrance flanked by 6 metre radius curves cannot be done on land within the applicants control as claimed in the Designers Response to the Safety Audit.

For the entrance to be of adaptable standard as required by ESCC, the access carriageway would require kerbing on both sides. The kerbs would require concrete haunching, the kerbed edge would normally require a safety strip behind the kerb face of at least 600mm. To construct this roadway with suitable excavation would require working space in addition. The total land requirement from the front garden of No 73 to be able to construct the 6 metre radius curve would be of the order of 2.8 metres width as shown on Figure 1.
(Figure 1 can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31075)

It is therefore incorrect for the designer or EXIGO to claim that the junction can remain entirely compliant with HE requirements as set out in TD42/95 and remain within land under the applicants control and for this reason I object to this plan.

Right turns from driveways on Barnhorn road

It appears that the Safety Audit consultant has paid attention to the Farm access road in relation to No 77 Barnhorn road's driveway but has ignored the other 11 house drives that will be affected by the right turning lane and ghost island. There are a total of 12 houses with driveways affected by the right turning lane. All of these properties will find that it is considerably more difficult and dangerous to turn right on to Barnhorn road out of their driveways at various times on account of either vehicles standing in the right turning lane, or approaching the right turn lane or obstructing the view of the approaching traffic stream from the left and which they will be attempting to join. I attach a drawing showing the driveways I am referring to (Figure 2).

(Figure 2 can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31062)

When turning right on a busy road which has a hatched out ghost lane in the middle, it is common practice for drivers to cross the traffic lanes as two individual operations separately and to wait in the hatched area for a gap in the traffic stream they want to join. It will only be possible to do this with significantly increased hazard once this junction to the development is established. It will be doubly dangerous on account of the sharp bend in the road to the west. The sight line for traffic approaching from the west will be only 45 metres from the back of the right turning traffic. At the prevailing speed this amounts to only 3.6 seconds in which to react. A very short time for a driver to appreciate the presence of a vehicle manoeuvring out of a driveway and to stop in time.

I am aware of several situations with right turning lanes and ghost markings but none with as many as 12 houses affected and without a signalised junction. All others that I know of are on straight sections of road with good visibility. The probability of an accident or incident increases substantially with the addition of random conflicting movements and short reaction tunes. I am bound to say that I think this situation is potentially very dangerous and for this reason I object to this plan.

The Rat-run

The situation at this junction will be dangerous more or less throughout the working day because of the use of the right turn by rat-running traffic to avoid congestion at Little Common roundabout.

ESCC GET have said in their response to the application that they would require the developer to install a 20mph zone through the estate backed up by speed control measures and that would be sufficient to deter rat-runners. Recent experience with a rat-run of very similar length, avoiding a congested junction in Saint Leonards only 6 Kilometres away does NOT confirm this view. Despite installation of a chicane and a total of 11 speed humps (some quite severe) on the rat- run, it continued to be used for prolonged peak periods by significant numbers of rat-runners for many years until the congestion at A259 Bexhill road /Harley Shute road junction was relieved by the Bexhill-Hastings link road. This rat run in Bulverhythe was 870 metres long, narrow and included several side turnings. For comparison the rat-run through the Spindlewood development would be 800 metres long. Even with a delay for the right turn at the Barnhorne entrance, an average of less than 17.5mph on the estate roads and additional time to negotiate the various turns the rat-run would still be very attractive relative to the queueing time on Barnhorn road at Little Common roundabout for much of the working day. The rat-run would save drivers between 45 seconds to 1 minute. An advantage that would attract many, for this reason I object to this plan.

Overall conclusion

The entrance cannot be constructed in accordance with Drawing No T277 37A.DWG Revision A as required by HE and on land under the applicants control if it is to remain entirely compliant with HE requirements as set out in TD42/95.

This entrance to the development off Barnhorn road is potentially dangerous, and not in a suitable location on Barnhorn road. This design opens up a rat-run that despite speed control measures will attract extraneous traffic on account of it being shorter that the equivalent main road route and that it avoids a junction congested with conflicting traffic at certain times of day.


Letter to Ms Jo Edwards follows:

Planning Application RR/2017/1705/P
Land Off Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill

I am writing concerning the proposed access to this development off Barnhorn road and the Architects drawings Nos 1743-P-005 and the artists impression drawing No 1743-P-006.

The actual width of the present farm access including grass verges is 11.3 metres between the dwarf walls 5 metres back from the existing roadway. This will be 6 metres back from the proposed stop line because they propose to push the kerb and roadway approx. l metre northwards.

With a 2 metre footway proposed on the east side and a 6metre carriageway there is only 3.3 metres for verge on the west side. The 6metre radius of turn proposed must therefore cut across the driveway of No 77 Barnhorn road immediately to the west to the extent of 2.7 metres.

I am sure that you will treat the Artist's impression with some caution and you would be right to do so. The Artist's Impression includes a great deal of artistic licence and has no place in a professional planning submission, in that this drawing seeks to give the impression that there is more than 6 metres of verge left on the west side after widening of the carriageway and that the curve radius would be well clear of No 77's driveway. This is completely erroneous and should be entirely disregarded.

Because of the relatively narrow 6metre wide access and the tight 6metre curve radii at the junction the swept path of a long rigid vehicle such as a refuse wagon or rigid furniture van when turning left will encroach at least 50% into the right turning lane or ghost island or overrun the footway on the left. This also will lead to unsafe situations.

I understand from the Transport Assessment that some 44 vehicles would be leaving from this access in the AM peak and turning left. (I also understand that this in itself is an underestimate and the true number would be over 50.) The flow westwards on Barnhorn road is forecast to be 1373 per hour in the AM peak plus the left turners from the development and the 18 vehicles seeking to turn right off Barnhorn road into the access road there will be a vehicle moving every 2.5 seconds! The result will be extremely unsafe for the 10 or so houses that have accesses on Barnhorn road in the stretch affected by the right turning lane and ghost island.

These unsafe aspects of the access contribute in no small way to the need to refuse this application and I urge you to refuse planning consent.

I enclose 4 representation forms in respect of various representations that I have on your Policy BEX9, The Spindlewood Drive site. This site is also the subject of a current Planning Application with Reference RR/2017/1705/P.

My third representation concerns the access of the site from Spindlewood Drive/Meads road and Maple Walk. I have attached extracts from several letters I have written about this with illustrative photographs.

The development of houses at land off Spindlewood Drive is to have an access from Spindlewood Drive leading to Meads road and Maple Walk. Meads road is not sufficiently wide to accommodate the additional traffic without substantial impediment to the movement of existing traffic. The only egress from Meads road is to Cooden Sea road which is a classified road in the ESCC road network. The junction of Meads road and Cooden Sea road is substandard on account of the sight lines. There would be substantial danger to the increased traffic using this junction on account of the development.

At its junction with Cooden Sea Road Meads road is on a 4.5% rising gradient. Driver sight lines are limited at the junction by parked vehicles, particularly the sight line to the right. It is noteworthy that the developer has not presented any vehicular swept path analysis for the Cooden Sea Road junction neither for the Spindlewood Drive junction.

The Meads road assessment by ESCC GET flies in the face of common sense. The present 2017 peak hour traffic and experience is that even this low level of traffic flow has difficulty whenever there is a large delivery vehicle parked in this narrow road. The 2028 sensitivity case peak hour traffic flow is for more than 100% increase in traffic as a result of this development. Yet ESCC GET avers that there would be no increased difficulty for traffic movement in this road'

The junction of Meads road with Cooden Sea road (CSR) is dangerous. The parking in front of the former Co-op building reduces visibility from a point 2.4 metres back on Meads road to 26 metres for the oncoming traffic to the right and for anyone seeking to enter CSR from Meads Road. The standard for 30mph sight distance of 43 metres is quoted in the ESCC CET document in relation to Spindlewood Drive but completely ignored when discussing the Meads road/Cooden Sea road junction. But with a sight line to the right of only 26 metres a vehicle coming down CSR from the Birkdale direction at about 30mph comes into view and is upon the junction in only 2 seconds. This junction is very dangerous. The proposal for a re-alignment of the Meads road entry reduces this sight line to 25 metres and makes the junction even more dangerous.

G Lawson Representation No 3 on BEX9 Spindlewood Drive housing.

Access via Meads road

The 2017 peak hour traffic on Meads Road is reported in the TA as 48 pcus two way and experience backed up by photographic evidence is that even this low level of traffic flow has difficulty whenever there is a large delivery vehicle parked in this narrow road.

Photographs of Meads Road and Maple Walk taken 16th August 2017

The access via Meads road

Meads Road, 2 cars meet at parked delivery lorry. One car has to give way to the other. (photo attached which can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31267)

Meads road is only 5.4 metres to 5.5 metres wide for its entire length. At its junction with Cooden Sea Road Meads road is on a 4.5% rising gradient. Driver sight lines are limited at the junction and this further inhibits its capacity. With residential parking on both sides of Meads Road traffic often moves with extreme difficulty.

The unsuitability of Meads Road as a residential spine access road for another 160 or 170 houses in addition to the 145 that it already serves making a total of more than 300 houses is obvious. The photograph illustrates graphically the difficulty of traffic moving when a heavy lorry is delivering at the kerbside and two cars have to manoeuvre alternately to pass.

The 2028 sensitivity case peak hour traffic flow is for more than 100% increase in traffic as a result of this development. Yet ESCC GET avers that there would be no increased difficulty for traffic movement m this road. This can at best be described as 'wishful thinking'.

Meads Road looking north from Meads Avenue towards Cooden Sea Road.
Note the red awning on the shop at the junction of Meads road and Cooden Sea road
that appears in the background of both of the above photographs.
(photo attached which can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31268)

Junction with Cooden Sea Road

The junction of Meads road with Cooden Sea road (CSR) is dangerous. The parking in front of the former Co-op building reduces visibility from a point 2.4 metres back on Meads road to 26 metres for the oncoming traffic to the right and for anyone seeking to enter CSR from Meads Road. The following photograph illustrates this.

More than 100% increase in delivery traffic, private vehicles and possibly construction traffic using this access is not a tenable basis for planning.

The junction of Meads road with Cooden Sea road

Even with the marginal widening of the junction throat on Meads road to 6 metres wide for a maximum of 25 metres the junction remains on a rising gradient of 4.5% on Meads road. The thresholds of adjacent properties prevent this gradient being reduced.

(Photo attached which can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31269)

Meads road/ Cooden Sea road Junction looking south from 2.4 metres back on Meads road, a vehicle is concealed until it is only 2 seconds from the junction. The white van is not as close to the junction as it could be (see double yellow lines)

The standard for 30mph sight distance of 43 metres is quoted in the ESCC GET document in relation to Spindlewood Drive but completely ignored when discussing the Meads road/Cooden Sea road junction. But with a sight line to the right of only 26 metres a vehicle coming down CSR from the Birkdale direction at about 30mph comes into view and is upon the junction in only 2 seconds. This junction is dangerous.

The proposal for a re-alignment of the Meads road entry reduces this sight line to 25 metres and makes the junction even more dangerous. The County Council is being inconsistent in its approach to road safety here. The applicant has only supplied drawings of the swept path for a car at this junction these show the restricted sight line to the right is reduced to 25 metres. With a very restricted sight line to the right the junction remains unsatisfactory and not suitable for a 100% increase m traffic. I object to use of this unsafe junction being deliberately further intensified.

I enclose 4 representation forms in respect of various representations that I have on your Policy BEX9, The Spindlewood Drive site. This site is also the subject of a current Planning Application with Reference RR/2017/1705/P.

My fourth representation concerns the creation of a rat run by having access off both Barnhorn road and Spindlewood Drive. I have attached an aerial photograph showing the short cut I am concerned about.

The land development off Spindlewood Drive is intended to have direct access off both the A259 Barnhorn road and will in effect have a connection to the B2182 Cooden Sea road via Maple Walk and Clavering Walk/ Maple Avenue. Accesses off both Barnhorn road and Spindlewood Drive will create a short-cut through the development and on to Maple Walk and Maple Avenue for traffic moving between Barnhorn road and Cooden Beach /West Bexhill areas. The short-cut will be about 260 metres shorter than the main road via Little Common roundabout and Cooden Sea road. Given the congestion on Barnhorn road at the approach to Little Common roundabout the temptation for traffic to use the short cut would be irresistible. This short-cut is likely to draw more than 1000 vehicles per day on to the residential roads of Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk, Maple Avenue and Clavering Walk. Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are both un-adopted privately maintained roads. In the case of Maple Walk a significant length is no more 3.2 metres wide and completely impossible for two vehicles to pass without one giving way to another by pulling into a side turning or access way. Pedestrians also have to walk in the road in this narrow section - there are no footways or grass verges and increased traffic movements will obviously be very dangerous for them.

Despite proposals for speed limits through the housing area the rat run would be quicker for traffic than the classified road network route for most of the working day because of congestion on Barnhorn road and in Little Common village centre. The proposal is therefore severely detrimental to the amenity of a large area of existing housing.

ESCC GET have said in their response to the application that they would require the developer to install a 20mph one through the estate backed up by speed control measures and that would be sufficient to deter rat-runners. Recent experience with a rat-run of very similar length, avoiding a congested junction in Saint Leonards only 6 Kilometres away does NOT confirm this view. Despite installation of a chicane and a total of 11 speed humps (some quite severe) on the St Leonards rat-run, it continued to be used for prolonged peak periods by significant numbers of cars and vans for many years until the congestion at A259 Bexhill road /Harley Shute road junction was relieved by the Bexhill-Hastings link road. This rat run in Bulverhythe was 870 metres long, narrow and included several side turnings. For comparison the rat-run through the Spindlewood development would be 800 metres long even with the proposed slightly convoluted routeing.

Even with a delay for the right turn at the Barnhorne entrance, an average of less than 17.5mph on the estate roads and additional time to negotiate the various turns the rat-run would still be very attractive relative to the queuing time on Barnhorn road at Little Common roundabout for much of the working day. The rat-run would have drivers between 45 seconds to 1 minute. An advantage that would attract many.

The existence of the rat run would make the situation at the Barnhorn road junction even more dangerous more or less throughout the working day because of the additional use of the right turn by rat-running traffic to avoid congestion at Little Common roundabout. Traffic queues on the Barnhorn road approach to the Little Common roundabout routinely extend back to within sight of the farm turn-off and often further. The creation of the rat run and the increased use of the right turning lane in the ghost island on Barnhorn road are both highly undesirable side effects of this development.

G Lawson representation No 4 on creation of a short cut 'Rat-run' between Barnhorn road and Cooden Sea road

Creation of a short cut (rat run)

The short- cut shown in red, saving up to 210 metres on main road route in the southbound direction shown in white (the saving is distance is a little less in the northbound direction because of the elongated roundabout).

(photo attached, can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31270)

With two accesses to the development from both A259 Barnhorn road and Spindlewood drive there is the possibility for people to take the short cut from west to South and vice versa. After the peak hour the westbound flow on Barnhorn road is reduced and therefore there will be more gaps in the westbound traffic and a greater possibility for traffic to get across and take the short-cut. Given the congestion on Barnhorn road at the approach to Little Common roundabout the temptation for traffic to use the short cut would be irresistible. This short-cut is likely to draw in the region of 1000 - 1500 vehicles per day on to the residential roads of Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk, Maple Avenue and Clavering Walk as shown in the aerial photo shot above.

The short-cut through the development would bring increased traffic on to Maple Walk and Maple Avenue for traffic moving between Barnhorn road and Cooden Beach/West Bexhill areas. The short-cut (rat run) is shown in red in the diagram above. The short-cut will be some 210 metres shorter than the main road via Little Common roundabout and Cooden Sea road. Given the congestion on Barnhorn road at the approach to Little Common roundabout the temptation for traffic to use the short cut would be irresistible. This short-cut is likely to draw in more than 1000 vehicles per day and possibly as much as 1500 vehicles per day on to the residential roads of Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk, Maple Avenue and Clavering Walk. Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are both un-adopted privately maintained roads.

Maple Walk

In the case of Maple Walk a significant length is no more 3.2 metres wide and for two vehicles to pass one has to give way to another by pulling off the roadway across a side access. But it would be just possible for a flow of up to 200 vehicles per hour to use this narrow section.

The following four photographs illustrate the problems this would cause. The effect for pedestrians, pedestrians with push chairs and impaired mobility scooters conflicting with rat running traffic could be disastrous. Pedestrians who are not infrequent in this stretch, have to walk in the road in this narrow section of Maple Walk- there are no footways or grass verges and increased traffic movements will obviously be very dangerous for them. Rother District Council should not be encouraging this. I object to this substantial and potentially dangerous increased traffic use of Maple Walk.

Photo 1. Maple Walk between Antrona Close and Hazelwood Close. A small car in the very narrow part 150 meters length without footpath and total road width of 3.2 meters only. There is no room for two vehicles to pass.

(photo attached, can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31271)

Photo 2. Maple Walk. There are no footways or verges so pedestrians are forced into the road in narrow section on the short-cut
(photo attached, can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31272)

Photo 3. Impaired mobility scooter and guide dog on the narrow section of Maple Walk
(photo attached, can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31273

Photo 4. Pedestrians with a child in a push chair negotiate the narrow section with caution
(photo attached, can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31274)

Photo 5. Very narrow 180 metre length of Maple Walk. Opposing traffic has to pull off the road at an access.
(photo attached, can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31275)

The access to Barnhorn Road is totally unsuitable. Its proximity to the bends west of the access makes it a potential dangerous junction. The road already experiences a level of accidents that has resulted in being classified as a 'high risk' highway.
The A259 Barnhorn Road is already heavily congested and this congestion will increase once the developments at Rosewood Park and west of Ashridge Residential Home are complete and occupied. Barnhorn Road is already inadequate for the volume of traffic it carries and any further development can only make it worse.
Meads Road, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue which would provide the other access to Spindlewood Drive are narrow and unsuited to any increase in traffic .

It is clear that there are no possible ways to mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via water borne pollution from this site.
If or rather, when this occurred it would be a breach of the Habitats Regulations and a contravention of the People over Wind Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) judgement established quite recently in Ireland.
This site should be removed from the plan as there should never be any development on a site so close to a RAMSAR wetlands region that could adversely affect that Special Area of Conservation.

Both the Environment Agency and Natural England have found serious faults in the proposal by the prospective developer of this site.

It is now well known that Rother District Council has been told that "a competent authority must take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce harmful effect of a plan or project as part of (an) appropriate assessment." It is quite clear that the developer and the Council are have yet to prove, that any development on this site which is so close to a RAMSAR wetlands region would not adversely, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, affect that Special Area of Conservation.

It is also very clear that the information provided by the proposed developer to mitigate any potential adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via water borne pollution will not work and indeed, will fail very quickly. The Environment Agency are also requiring that the solution to this issue must be "maintained over the long term. So far, the requirements of both the Environment Agency and Natural England have not been satisfied and nor have those of local residents.

The potential dangers of access to and from the site entrance in Barnhorn Road are numerous being so close to the "S" bend heading west and also, local residents will also experience significant difficulty and problems in accessing and leaving their own drive.

Furthermore, Mead Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue are totally unsuitable for the increased heavy volume of traffic likely to result from this site, and both Maple Wlk and Maple Avenue are both unadopted, imposing a much greater burden on residents in maintaining the roads. The proposed Spindlwood site development will create far greater volume of traffic than suggested and seeming accepted by the Council to date.

And finally, Rother District Council seem to ignore the impact of air pollution around the site and along Barnhorn Road, which has already increased significantly since the opening of the Link Road, and will be worsened once the Rosewood Park estate is occupied.