5.30 Vision for Bexhill, Q56.

Bexhill is the smallest and most congested area of the 5 sub areas yet is expected to take the 50% of the housing build and over 50% of the employment. Why is the requirement not spread more evenly. The Bexhill Infrastructure needs to be improved prior to any more development.


UTI001 - Local gas network reinforcement

Why is a ‘medium term’ reinforcement of gas supplies required when building regulations will exclude carbon fuels including gas from 2025 so all new development will not need it?


UTI008 - Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure to accommodate growth and/or meet higher water quality standards

Should be a short term delivery for waste water treatment improvements as it already cannot cope.


COM002 - Bexhill Sports Leisure Centre Development – new wet and dry leisure facility

Bexhill sports and leisure centre is classed as ‘essential’ and should be on a short term timetable.


TRA008 - Town centre accessibility traffic management improvements

Bexhill Town Centre planning should include more/better parking facilities. Lack of parking drives people away. The last ESCC effort reduced parking availability and causes more congestion and pollution.


Live Well Locally

The poster boards use the term ‘wheeling’ but this apparently does not include vehicles. Vehicle improvements do not seem to be mentioned on any posters.

Please see attached letter for full comments made by The British Horse Society.

Overall Priority 2 – Live Well Locally, Paragraphs 2.9, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These
provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site)
(A) All major development proposals for new dwellings must meet the following criteria:

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Further, proposed “improvements” to existing infrastructure must be an improvement for every user. For example, tarmacking a bridleway to provide a “cleaner” path to school would result in a less safe and amenable path for other users as it would be more slippery for horse riders and would result in faster movement of bicycles putting slower moving users at risk. Access to the coast should be improved for all wherever possible. Whilst a pleasant provision for walkers, the coastal path currently mostly provides nothing for those on a bike or a horse.

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site)
B) All development proposals of more than 50 homes must meet the following criteria:

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Further, proposed “improvements” to existing infrastructure must be an improvement for every user. For example, tarmacking a bridleway to provide a “cleaner” path to school would result in a less safe and amenable path for other users as it would be more slippery for horse riders and would result in faster movement of bicycles putting slower moving users at risk. Access to the coast should be improved for all wherever possible. Whilst a pleasant provision for walkers, the coastal path currently mostly provides nothing for those on a bike or a horse.

As explained above, off site routes should include all VRUs and those away from the road side should be created as bridleways or restricted byways.

Proposed Policy LWL4: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling & Public Transport (Within the Site):

Connecting beyond the site, filtered permeability, “safe routes accessible to all”, junctions, crossings, shared use routes, should all include equestrians

There are not enough large roads,cycle paths or access roads currently in and around Battle.The sheer congestion and pollution in the area caused by such a massive development project will lead to further road erosion - just look at the area around Tollgates- over a number of years.There is just not space for the hundreds of permanent extra cars that a new housing estate will bring in to the area.

Encouragement of inter-generational living by relaxing of planning rules to allow conversion of ancillary buildings/extensions particularly in rural areas would enable care of both very young and elderly with huge benefits and savings. Both generations would be able to stay in the community in which they feel they belong; rural/affordable housing problems would be eased; a greater mix of community would be achieved. The present policy of permitting conversion for holiday lets with the aim of promoting the tourist economy should be secondary to allowing the same properties to be converted for extended family use which will enable rural economies, schools and communities to thrive. Such properties could be subject to restrictions meaning ancillary accommodation cannot be sold off separately.

The snappy punchline of 'Green to the core' and 'Live well locally' is a bold attempt to show a commitment to protecting rural communities and local ecology but your HELAA land allocation of CAT0001 and potential site CAT0016 in Catsfield fly in the face of these claims/promises. The proposal of 60 new houses (some proposing to be built on protected AONB land) in this small rural village (doubling the size of the main village), is absolutely shocking and I object strongly to these sites being included for allocation in this plan. These proposals would not only destroy ancient woodland, biodiversity and protected wildlife habitats, they would also severely impact the lives of local residents with increased pollution and a serious decline in the already insufficient utilties and local infrastructure.

Live Well Locally

The Live Well Locally concept will be particularly difficult for residents within Icklesham Parish as none of the four settlements have a doctors surgery, the closest ones being in Rye and Hastings. There is also two primary schools throughout the Parish that serve all four settlements. These schools (Winchelsea CEP and Icklesham CEP) are very small schools and would not be able to take an influx of extra children. Two of the wards have small village shops and one has a Co-Op. None of these shops would be suitable to do a weekly food shop. Icklesham does not have a shop at all.

There is a bus service in each of the four settlements however the service is infrequent and at times unreliable.

Policy GTC2

Icklesham Parish Council are concerned about what this policy would mean for historic and listed buildings. IPC note that the polilcy states that HER1 would apply but it would be interesting to note which policy would carry more weight when deciding on a planning application.

Policy HER1

Please refer to note above concerning GTC2.

Policy DEV3

IPC would like to know if Net Zero developments would be considered outside of development boundaries.

Policy LWL3

Both Rye Harbour and Icklesham have potential sites identified for development. Both Rye Harbour and Icklesham have a bus service although the service is only once an hour during the week and once every two hours on a Saturday. There is no bus service at all on a Sunday in Rye Harbour. If new development is to go ahead, could Rother consult with Stagecoach about increasing the number of bus journeys?

Rye Harbour has good cycle paths however cycling in and out of Icklesham means cycling on the road with fast traffic both in and out of the village.


Policy HOU6

Planning Enforcement Team very over stretched and relying on Parish Councils and residents to flag any issues. Issues with HMOs may not be obvious to Councillors or other residents. Will the Enforcement Team realistically have time to Enforce such planning conditions?

Policy HOU17

Would these sort of developments be considered in Winchelsea Beach? IPC are concerned about the potential extra kitches and bathrooms and the strain this would cause to an already overloaded sewer system and ongoing surface water flooding and sewerage issues.

Policy ECO6

The Parish Council would like to know if this would also be the case for caravan parks extending their opening times during winter months? There have been instances recently where extension to opening times have been allowed despite objections raised by residents and the Parish Couoncil and evidence of extreme surface water flooding on specific sites being provided to the Planning Team and Planning Committee.

Policy ENV1

The Parish Council would like to know if anything can be done to ensure that any contributions are actually spent on improving local infrastructure as we know that the sewer networks in both Icklesham and Winchelsea Beach are in desperate need of updating. The Parish Council feel that this is a necessary step before any further development takes place in either ward.


Potential Sites Identified in Icklesham

ICK0041 & ICK0017

As previously explained, Icklesham's sewer network is in need of an upgrade and the Parish Council feel that this should take place before any further development takes place. The Parish Clerk has an email from Southern Water which indicates that they are aware that the Water Treatment Works (WTW) in Icklesham gets overloaded which causes it to back up the line. The Clerk has asked Southern Water whether there are any plans to update the Water Treatment Works and they have advised there is no planned investment prior to April 2025 at Icklesham WTW. However, there is planned investment in AMP8 (April 2025 to 2030) to the monitoring of flows entering the WTW. Certainty of this investment is yet to be concluded by OFWAT in the PR24 determination for AMP8.


Potential Site identified in Rye Harbour

ICK0046

Parish Council have previously raised concerns about the local infrastructure not being able to cope with this level of development. Particularly the roads as Rye Harbour is effectively a cul de sac. Harbour Road already gets heavily congested, particularly in the summer months when visitors attend to visit the Discovery Centre and the Nature Reserve. ICK0046 has been identified as suitable for 40 dwellings which is a large development for Rye Harbour which is very small in comparison.

In rural parts of the district, we should allow and encourage the conversion of ancilliary buildings and/or extensions into standalone accommodation, when that accommodation will be used to house the elderly or young couples and not be used for holiday lets. This will allow families to care for older people and keep them at home, relieving pressure on social services, and allow famileis with very young children to stay in areas with few housing choices while also accessing help from their parents - in both cases this would help keep village communities vital and viable. If the council wants to avoid the creation of de facto new properties, add a restriction or saying such conversions can not be sold separately from the main property at any pint in the future.

You can't have these communities in areas where the majority of houses are second homes, holiday lets or Air BnB's, so you need to have policies to address this issue which is a massive contributor to the housing shortfall.

(BAT00014) will increase access to all ready stretched resources in the area including doctors and schools.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of land at Almonry Farm, North Trade Road. Site ID BAT0014

Building 1000 houses in an area that has one primary school, one GP surgery, 2 dentists where you can’t get appointments - how can you say this is helping Battle have an environment where people can live well?! Where is the infrastructure to support this?

Further - the several houses at Lillybank (most recent development) are unsold and now reduced in price. There are many family-sized homes currently for sale in Battle that have been advertised for 6 months + Added to this is the current development of the Blackfriars site which is for 200 houses. After the reneged promises of the developers at the current Blackfriars site and the inability of RDC to compel the developers to make good their promise of affordable housing and social housing it is clear there is absolutely NO appetite for any further large-scale housing developments in Battle.

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.