Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24877
Received: 20/06/2024
Respondent: Mr Jason Ward
Please consider wheelchair access at all times and wheelchair accessible toilets on all high streets and all beach front areas.
Right now it's terrible in Bexhill where I live to access a toilet.
Most shops have steps to get in and most bars and restaurants do not ha e a toilet.
Plus blue badge parking is sooo much worse than it was in 1994
Everyone has a badge and everyone is walking
I use a wheelchair and I am paralysed for 30 years.
I feel excluded from society in 2024
Please consider wheelchair access at all times and wheelchair accessible toilets on all high streets and all beach front areas.
Right now it's terrible in Bexhill where I live to access a toilet.
Most shops have steps to get in and most bars and restaurants do not ha e a toilet.
Plus blue badge parking is sooo much worse than it was in 1994
Everyone has a badge and everyone is walking
I use a wheelchair and I am paralysed for 30 years.
I feel excluded from society in 2024
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25244
Received: 11/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Nigel Pollard
Please see full representation.
Firstly, my congratulations on the clarity and thoroughness of the planning process and the presentation at the exhibition(s).
While I appreciate that you are still at the general planning stages, I believe it is important to include consideration of the following:
1) Infrastructure: (Completion of the link between Queensway and the A21 in St Leonards is essential to support the attraction of potential businesses to the proposed industrial units). The utilities seem to struggle to support the with existing demand e.g. water storage and supply, mobile signal coverage, EV charging etc. Can these be fixed before adding to the burden?
2) Roads: Experience from when the link road was under construction shows that alternative routes receive a punishing load from diverted traffic for which, judging by the damage caused, they were not constructed. No attempt has been made to repair the damage which ought to be part of the overall planning (e.g. Woodsgate Park while the Sidley bridge was rebuilt). Such damage mitigates against the plans for greater use of bicycle transport for instance.
3) Housing density: I understand that the underprovision of parking spaces is deliberate to try to force people to use public transport instead. This does, however, lead to increased use/need to park cars on the roads and pavements hindering pedestrians and those with disabilities, and adding to the sense of claustrophobia caused by the higher density housing - hardly contributing to well-being.
4) Types of accommodation: It is to be hoped that the eventual granting of planning permissions will include the need to include climate friendly elements such as photo-electric roofing on all new builds, subterranean tanks for brown water storage to alleviate rainwater runoff and pressure on the pumped mains water.
5) Need for affordable housing: What is the cause of the pressure? Can we ensure that any such dwellings are used for local people and not swallowed up by private landlords, 2nd home owners or more distant local authorities to fulfil their own housing shortfalls?
6) Location of proposed schools and medical units: Again, this probably belongs further down the line of the planning permissions but, for the former, the safe delivery and collection of students needs to be built into the infrastructure. For the latter, the demographics need to be taken into account. With a significantly high proportion of elderly residents, access to any medical units needs to be on the level, i.e. without steep ramps or steps to negotiate. The Cooden Sea Road surgery fails on both these aspects and parking for the disabled or mobility impaired is also notable by its absence - most parking spaces are taken up by long stay blockers (staff? local shop workers? residents?).
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25501
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: NHS Sussex
Please see attached representation.
Please see attached representation.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26182
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Etchingham Parish Council
The Parish Council does not believe that the Infrastructure Development Plan should simply be a vehicle for the providers to furnish their views and believes that Parish Councils could be consulted with profit on rural projects. It believes that in many cases the projects identified, while clearly benefiting an area much wider than their immediate neighbourhood, do not have District wide benefits, an imprecise and demonstrably inaccurate term, at least in relation to the greater part of the projects listed. It wishes to draw your attention to two potential projects which would directly benefit the residents of Etchingham although not in the parish and one that would have major benefits for a large part of the District. An expansion of the primary care facilities in Burwash (the Fairfield Surgery), the provision of more extensive pharmacy services, and the combination of these developments with a community hub would benefit a number of parishes and a substantial number of residents, arguably more than the Robertsbridge project, although we are not to be taken as questioning the necessity for that project. Both are needed at a time when a major switch of funding to primary care services is in train.
Please see attached the full response from Etchingham Parish Council regarding the draft Local Plan.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26184
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Etchingham Parish Council
Another focus of attention should be the Highways drainage which is antiquated and increasingly prone to overload.
Please see attached the full response from Etchingham Parish Council regarding the draft Local Plan.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26185
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Etchingham Parish Council
Another project which would benefit all users of the A265 would address the junction of that road with the A21 in Hurst Green. There are times of the day when the volume of traffic on the A21 is such as to delay egress by times that can run into double figures. A mini roundabout or conceivably the provision of traffic lights would address the problem. Finally, the Parish Council would draw your attention to a major omission from the IDP. Provision of the Flimwell bypass would greatly improve the flow of traffic on the A21, enable the re-opening of a stretch of dual carriageway, reduce accidents and do something to improve the "centre" of that village.
Please see attached the full response from Etchingham Parish Council regarding the draft Local Plan.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27238
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Guestling Parish Council
Guestling is a relatively small parish consisting of three, separate urban conurbations, Three Oaks, Guestling Green and the largest being Coghurst Caravan Park. Generally, the infrastructure servicing these is poor with only one main road (A259) bisecting Guestling Green while both Three Oaks and Coghurst Caravan Park served by only 'C' class roads. There are minimal footways/cycleways and buses only serving Guestling Green and Friars Hill/Pet Road. There is a Railway Halt in Three Oaks but no facilities for parking, cycles etc. and access restricted to a narrow and steep footway that can become icy during the winter months. Three Oaks and Coghurst Caravan Park are accessed by Butchers Lane (from the A259), lvyhouse Lane and Chowns Hill (which joins The Ridge in Hastings). These lanes are used by HGV's as a shortcut and by many rat-running vehicles seeking to avoid the inevitable congestion on The Ridge. This has resulted in extremely poor road surfaces and drainage on lanes with single way traffic in parts and no footways.
Other infrastructure is little better with very poor broadband connections due to overhead copper telephone lines, a water supply system that is in need of replacement with many breaks and water outages or low pressure over the last few years, and a sewage system that, particularly the system serving Guestling Green, is inadequate with regular discharging of untreated sewage in to local ditches and water courses.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28115
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Please see attached ESCC's comments regarding the district's infrastructural requirements regarding schools and education, with a particular focus on Bexhill, Battle, Early Years, and SEND/Special Schools.
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28119
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Infrastructure Background Paper; Satisfied that this is included and contains reference to the current Library Strategy and correct local sites.
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28120
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Comment on the council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan - please see paragraph 4.5 of the attached submitted representations.
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28364
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Baron
Please see attached document for comments on the following issues:
1. General environment:
- Better maintenance of verges and flower beds in Bexhill, including along the sea front.
- Council should get involved in the sewage discharge issue.
- Extend promenade along to Cooden and Pevensey.
- More public toilets required.
Please see attached document for comments on the following issues:
1. General environment:
- Better maintenance of verges and flower beds in Bexhill, including along the sea front.
- Council should get involved in the sewage discharge issue.
- Extend promenade along to Cooden and Pevensey.
- More public toilets required.
2. Housing / NHS
- Development should use brownfield sites over greenfield sites.
- Development should not be built on flood areas.
- No residential development without doctors, dentists and schools.
- Work with NHS in promoting walk in facilities ot take pressure of A&E.
3. Parking
- More free spaces for those that want to pop in to Bexhill for a short time. Also larger spaces e.g. 4 hours there are not enough. Why charge on the seafront - this does not encourage visitors and does not help local businesses.
4. Town businesses
- There are too many empty shops. Is this because the rent is too high? DO something to encourage young business starters, get the shops full so Bexhill is an interesting and different shopping centre to come to.
5. Fitness facilities
- Ravenside swimming pool needs a refurbishment. It is used so much to help local people's fitness. For weeks the showers were not working but we still had to pay to swim full price. An outside lido would be such a great addition to the town and would draw people here. Is there funding out there for this?
6. There are many positives that must be mentioned:
- Lots of historical things manly run by Bexhill Museum and Bexhill heritage. Keep and develop these groups.
- Lots of fitness activities for older people. This is great and needs extending.
- De La Warr provides a fantastic point for visitors and provides art and music for local s and visitors from afar.
- Good transport. Trains, local buses and free town bus.
- The beach is looked after well, bins emptied regularly, etc. This is great for residents and visitors.
Generally this is a great place to live but there are things to do. The most important thing is to develop the economy, encourage more visitors to come here to spend money.