I wish to comment on BX41. It states "The site was previously the sports ground of Sidley United Football Club". Sidley United FC was in fact one user of the sports ground at Sidley Sports Club which included Sidley Cricket Club and Sidley Social Club. Provision of a 3G football pitch would not support the needs of the Cricket or Social sides of the old Club.

The gap between Bexhill and St Leonards must be given due consideration for drainage and nature conservation

I think area BX 10 could be used for more high density housing. It is suitable for young staff in educational and caring employment and those travelling,by train, along the coast for employment.

I object to the plans for BX15, the part of Broad Oak Park.
As I understand, local charities have expressed interest and submitted both business plans AND an asset transfer request for this piece of land.
I am also aware that Community Supporters, a Rother based Charity, has done an ecological study of this land as part of their interest - their interest in this part of Broad Oak Park is more than 3 years old. So why were they, essentially, ignored?

This green space should remain with the community. A good proposal has been made by Community Supporters (BX15) and will benefit the local community. There is already an immense about of houses going up and taking green space

I am greatly disgusted to see you are planning on building on yet another greenfield site BX15

Regarding Sites BX20, BX21 and BX22 the same objections apply.
1. Access to Barnhorn Road from the proposed housing developments through Barnhorn Manor Farm is dangerous and this has been flagged up on numerous occasions by East Sussex Highways. There is no safe access point along Barnhorn Road which will ensure that vehicles can enter an already crowded and busy road. At most times of the day there are traffic queues forming in Barnhorn Road causing unnecessary pollution to the residents and those walking along the road.
2. Traffic along Barnhorn Road is already at maximum numbers at most times of the day but especially during rush hours and more traffic entering the road in the Little Common area simply cannot be justified. Most people will continue using their cars because of the poor public transport links and so the problem can only get worse and eventually someone will be killed trying to cross Barnhorn Road. It is a very dangerous stretch of road especially for elderly and vulnerable people.
3. I use the footpaths around Barnhorn Manor Farm on a regular basis and surface water is a real problem for at least 8 months of the year. I fail to see how building hundreds of houses on this land will make it less likely to flood.
4. I live on the 'ribbon development' to the south of Barnhorn Road. Whenever there is heavy rain we all suffer from the effects of the 9 inch wide sewage pipes which run along Barnhorn Road. These were built for the original houses but with all the extra developments along this stretch of road, the pipes can no longer cope with extra liquids and solids entering the system. Southern Water has to come out to pump raw sewage from the gardens of our nearest neighbours, regularly and we also have to deal with sinks and toilets which do not flush away and sewage smells entering our house. All the above proposed developments will only add to our problems. There is no mention of upgrading sewage facilities in the area and the so called SUDS systems cannot be relied on if we continue to have huge rain storms in the future, which seems highly probable.
5. We are fortunate to have a wild field with an ancient pond and barn, at the back of our garden and over the past few years have seen crested newts and grass snakes, and various types of raptors. Last year there was a nightingale and we often view at least two Barn Owls in the evenings. Whatever policies the developers have to help wildlife in the area it is obvious that our local habitat will be destroyed and more wildlife will be lost to the detriment of us all.
6. No developer can assure us that their plans for the above proposed developments will ensure that the Pevensey Levels are kept safe 'in perpetuity'. Once pollution hits, as I am convinced that it will due to rapid climate change, then these beautiful wetlands will be lost forever.
7. While I am not against developments that are well thought out and planned for the next generation, I feel that no thought is being given to up grading all the necessary structures which need to be put in place BEFORE any houses are built. Build a new school BEFORE houses as children are already travelling to Hastings and beyond for their education. Build the new medical centre BEFORE houses, as people in Little Common are already unable to get GP appointments. Work out how to improve traffic management on Barnhorn Road BEFORE houses are built so that we don't have gridlock and accidents on a regular basis. Ensure that the sewage system in Barnhorn Road is fit for purpose BEFORE building more houses so that we don't have to suffer raw sewage on our properties. Improve the public transport systems in the area BEFORE houses are built so that new residents wont need to use cars. Make clear to developers that the Pevensey Levels must be kept free from pollution risks 'in perpetuity' so that Bexhill will still be thought of as a beautiful place to live in the future.
I sincerely hope that you will pay great attention to all these objections before finalising any plans for the West Bexhill area.

There has been enough houses developed around that area and in Turkey with the new development being built now! It would be better to build houses on the old High school area that is not being used by wildlife as it is already concreted over. Why take more green space away when you have a site like the old high school that would have mains pipes and electricity in place. Wildlife need the green spaces to live in and us humans need it for mental wellbeing which will only cost the government more if taken away!

I am raising my objection to the proposed development BX15, Broadoak Lane. This should be retained as a designated green area. There are already 210 houses being built on land adjacent. Enough is enough and we as residents in the area are having to put up with enough development of green site land. Please choose other land on brownfield sites and stop eroding the countryside. Thank you

BX13.

1. This is a much used parking location in an area with a significant shortage of spaces. This reduction by removing the car parks would bring significant additional congestion to surrounding roads and further negatively impact the many local businesses whose customers rely upon this facility.

2. The council has a clear conflict of interest. Any decision on the site should be made independently to avoid self-dealing ensuring the decision is impartial. [The land is council owned - might the council sell the site for short term gains to fill budget gaps? The council should not be selling off key long term assets such as this to balance its books].

4. There would be an unacceptable level of disruption during the building process on what is a single lane one way road with no alternate access route congesting surrounding roads in including St Leonards Road and Sea Road.

Re: Policy Reference BX15.
Our major concern about this field being designated for 35 Homes to be built, is that there are already 210 houses to be built in the fields between it and Highwoods Golf Course. All of these new homes are going to exit on to Fryatts Way, which was originally made to have only 21 homes on it, has already had 30+ houses added on the Equestrian Land opposite the exsisting bungalows, and also has Concorde Close exiting on to it. The Surrounding roads that have to be used to get anywhere from here, are tiny, full of potholes, and are not in any way adequate for this amount of extra traffic. Therefore, another 35 homes exiting in to Fryatts Way, and the surrounding roads, is not a good idea, or in any way necessary. There are already many existing homes for sale in the area.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

BX 15: The site is allocated for residential development comprising some 35 dwellings.

"The site comprises a sloping grassed field on the edge of a residential area, just south of the land subject to site allocation Policy BX14 (Land at Fryatts Way) which benefits from planning permission granted on appeal for up to 210 dwellings."

There were many objections to the building of the 210 houses. The construction of these houses bought about considerable disruption to the local area. It will be appreciated the same issues appear unresolved including the need to provide pedestrian pathway in Ellerslie Lane of which there is currently none. Plus, to consider for the benefit of all residents in the area making Ellerslie Lane a one-way vehicle system which would have considerable advantages to reducing the traffic flow in this narrow Lane. The considerable increased traffic has been bought about by the Queens Way Bypass which results in traffic from Battle to Eastbourne making short cuts down St Marys Lane, Ellerslie Lane, Deerswood Lane and back onto the main A259 Hasting s to Eastbourne Road.
Other than a short stretch in Deerswood Lane, they are all `Lanes` without any pedestrian footpath.

"There is a public footpath on its southern edge although the field itself is not currently publicly accessible. Consequently, having regard to the planning permission on adjoining land, this site provides an opportunity for additional residential development within Bexhill."

This is in error. This site BX14 is part of Little Common Recreation Ground and Broadoak Park fields. This field has footpath access to it and is used by many residents as part of their green space. This has been previously highlighted to the council.
It offers to RDC the opportunity to continue to deal with it as part of the current green space area and enhance it for continued use by Bexhill residents.

"There is no suitable vehicular access point from Broadoak Lane, although pedestrian and cycle links could be provided. Therefore, vehicular access would need to be via the site to the north, subject to Policy BX14.
The interim HRA for the new Local Plan has identified that because the site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, mitigation measures to protect against significant effects to the Habitats Site may be required, and the policy requirements above reflect this.
While it is not publicly accessible, the site forms part of the wider Broad Oak Park in Council ownership which is subject to a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust which seeks to protect it from alternative uses. Consequently, further investigation into the site’s availability for development will be required."

This is in error. This green space is very much publicly accessible. It is used by residents daily with two access points joining it with the fields within Broad Oak Park.

I would point out the objection made by me in 2024 - detailed below - regarding the Fryatts Way 210 housing estate. None of the concerns expressed have been addressed and two years on the same issues are again highlighted:

I and my family will be adversely affected by this application of 210 homes off Fryatts Way. We live in the immediate area. This application does not take into account, and Rother should
1. the issues of road connections to this project via Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane. Both LANES. They can barely withstand the current traffic flow. Currently Ellerslie Lane needs vast improvement let alone the question of additional traffic this project will bring about. Deerswood Lane and Ellerslie Lane have become a traffic flow-through and short cut producing much more traffic seeking to get to and from Haven Brook Avenue for onward travel to Hastings and Eastbourne. Has Rother done a current traffic study of these lanes -vs - prior to the new Hastings Link Road? What is the traffic impact on this Lanes? This development and the additional developments in the Haven Brook Avenue area will bring increased traffic flow along these lanes which are inadequate to take the additional traffic. What provisions are the Developers and Rother DC taking to deal with the traffic issues?
2. There is no mention of additional schools or a proposal to increase current schools and funding. Are ESCC contributing to this application by way of additional funding for schools?
3. The additional number of people these Developments will bring about will impact on the Health Service in East Sussex particularly the local Doctors Surgeries. Are the NHS being consulted to establish the impact these housing developments will have on the area and are they making contingency plans for the future? Have RDC contacted the Health Service to establish the impact.? ----- Developers sole aim is to make money. RDC are the representatives of the local people and are expected to ensure that the local community is not disadvantaged by the impact of these Developments.

I also enclose a letter from the Ellerslie Area Residents Association in 2020 much of which is relevant to this proposed plan for the future.

The development of this field would appear to be contrary to the green field covenant as part of Broad Oak Park.
I and my family use this open green space which if developed would be denied to us, and all other residents.
Such a development will have a direct impact on my life.

As has been highlighted once this green space is developed it has gone forever and the Broad Oak Park as a park will be diminished and further future development into the Park will see its demise. There is a clear need to retain this field as part of Broad Oak Park and to ensure no further developments can take place anytime in the future.

Re: Policy Ref: BX15. This field is part of Broad Oak Park and as such is protected by Fields in Trust. It can only be built on if you provide the same amount of land for public use in the vicinity. That notwithstanding, this field should be kept as part of the Park. The Community Supporters group found that field to be the most biodiverse of all the fields in that part of the park. You have already approved 210 houses to go in the adjacent fields off Fryatt's Way. An extra 35 houses in the proposed field would mean 245 households exiting into Ellerslie Lane. The lane is subsiding, full of potholes and has no pavement for the increased number of people walking alone or with dogs and children along it, and children walking/cycling alone to school. Soon there will be additional refuse lorries for the imminent food collections.

Little Common does not have the local infrastructure or space that this will create. Barnhorn Rd is just not large enough. Not enough space for the people that will use schools, doctors, post office, shops. Is the sewer large enough to cope? Can the area on Beeching Rd next to the Police station be developed? It’s currently hidden be fir trees

I have serious concerns about the proposed new housing development near my home. While additional housing is often presented as necessary the promised infrastructure never happens. Local services such as doctors, dentists and other healthcare provision are already overstretched. It is increasingly difficult for existing residents to secure appointments. Adding more housing without guaranteed, funded infrastructure will significantly worsen this situation.

Our town is small and lacks the capacity to absorb large-scale development without harming residents’ quality of life. Increased housing will place further pressure on roads, services and amenities that are already limited. In addition, the development will result in the loss of countryside, permanently changing the rural character of the area.

concerned about the impact on our private cul-de-sac. Increased traffic, including people mistakenly using it as access, would create safety and maintenance issues for residents. Overall, this development risks long-term harm without clear, enforceable benefits.

Where do you plan on getting new teachers, doctors, nurses, dentists from when there is already a shortage? These plans are ridiculous. We don’t have enough of these professionals as it is. I can’t believe people actually fall for this proposals!

I also noticed the BX32 is the field surrounding the road I live on - mayo rise. My concern about this particularly development is the impact it will have on our road and property. My property boundary covers the part of road outside my house as well as the trees next to that field. Two concerns - damage to my property and damage to our road.

This representation is submitted on behalf of our client F Forte Developments Ltd.

Our client supports the allocation of land west of the Ninfield Road roundabout, Bexhill under Policy BX38 and welcomes its inclusion within the Draft Local Plan. The site has been promoted through the HELAA process and is available, suitable and deliverable, with no known physical, environmental, ownership or infrastructure constraints that would prevent residential development coming forward.

The site is capable of being delivered within the first five years of the plan period, subject to the grant of planning permission.

The indicative capacity of approximately 80 dwellings, at an average density of 40 dwellings per hectare, is appropriate for this ‘Live Well Locally’ location and reflects the site’s evolving relationship with the North Bexhill Growth Area, including the adjacent Kiteye Farm allocation.

The policy requirements relating to affordable housing, access, green infrastructure, ecology, SuDS, heritage and archaeology are considered achievable and proportionate, and can be satisfactorily addressed through detailed design, technical assessments and ongoing engagement with the relevant statutory bodies.

Vehicular access from Ninfield Road can be delivered in accordance with highway standards.

The retention and enhancement of existing landscape features, protection of ecological assets, and delivery of a multifunctional green infrastructure corridor are all capable of being integrated without compromising the developable area or site viability.

Overall, the allocation represents a sustainable, deliverable and well-located residential opportunity that will make a meaningful contribution to housing delivery and infrastructure provision within North Bexhill. Our client therefore supports Policy BX38 as drafted.

I oppose the planning of 35 homes Land North of Broadoak Lane, ref BX15.

There is planning for 210 homes off Fryatts Way, anymore houses will cause more problems as Fryatts Way is only a small road, this is where the extra traffic comes from plus the 210 homes, all roads in this area are small, especially Ellerslie Lane which is not a road but a lane!! There is a tight blind bend and in many places it is difficult to get two cars to pass each other let alone lorries for the movement of materials to build houses etc.

Bexhill infrastructure is not good! Even worse when more people arrive.

The strain is already showing in Bexhill with the increase on infrastructure adding more properties without more GP's and dentists schools would completely over burden the current facilities. The green spaces and the loss of mature trees which help to reduce the carbon footprint is unacceptable. Roads and access are already straining under the pressure of extra traffic and with no plan to improve the roads. There are so many more brownfield sites that could be utilised before ripping up the country side

It is already impossible to get a doctor's appointment and register for a dentist.
The sea is regularly full of sewage.
The roads are appalling all over Bexhill and traffic is getting worse. There needs to be investment in local services before any more houses go up.

Planning at present in Bexhill is out of control. As we speak, 89 houses are under development. Planning has been given to build 210 houses in Fryatts Way. 26 Houses have not long been completed in Elerslie lane. There are a possible 30 houses in the pipe line for what was BEX6 and permission has had been granted for 6 flats on the old cemetery lodge site. I’ve now become aware of up 500 houses can be build on land adjacent to Peartree lane. Can I ask where will it end? At what point do people in the planning department think enough is enough? Transport, Doctors and Dentists are under enormous pressures but this doesn’t seem to matter. At some point the council planning department must consider the needs and rights of people affected by overcrowding and over building.

**OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION BX15**

I wish to register my strong objection to the BX15 development. I also objected to BX14, as did the majority of local residents, but those concerns were not taken into account. Approving BX15 would compound the issues already created by BX14.

1. Loss of Green Space**
This site is an important area of green space. Once it is built on, it is lost permanently. The cumulative loss of green areas in Bexhill is having a lasting impact on the character and environment of the town.

2. Road Capacity and Safety**
The local road network is already inadequate, and BX14 will significantly increase traffic even before BX15 is considered. Ellerslie Lane, which I use daily, is extremely narrow with a very poor road surface. Two cars struggle to pass safely, and introducing construction traffic, heavy plant, and delivery vehicles will cause congestion, damage, and genuine safety risks.
Additionally, the absence of pavements means there is no safe walking route to local schools or amenities, which is entirely unsuitable for a development of this scale.

3. Insufficient Local Infrastructure**
Bexhill’s infrastructure is already overstretched. Water, sewage, and surface drainage systems are failing to cope with current demand, as demonstrated by recent releases of raw sewage into the sea and frequent standing water on roads.
This is before considering the pressure on schools, GP surgeries, dentists, and other essential services, which are already at or over capacity.

4. Housing Need vs. Housing Type**
While there is a genuine need for more housing, the developments delivered in Bexhill consistently fail to match that need. Developers often include “affordable housing” in initial plans, only to remove or reduce it later. The town does not require large numbers of high‑end homes; local employment levels simply do not support this. What is needed is genuinely affordable housing for local people, not luxury homes aimed at buyers from outside the area.

North & West Bexhill will be changed from a relaxing, quiet area like Crawley. We have foxes wander around our close, bats, peregrine falcons and protected species in the Chestnut Meadow area.
The holiday lodges and park could be a more viable business with a bit more investment.
The people in the lodges will not want building all around them, neither do we in Thorne Crescent.
Sidley needs more investment as there is nothing to attract the many people these dwellings would house.
Roads are too busy and dangerous. Paving poor especially for wheelchairs & pushchairs.
Inadequate gps, dentists, hospital places. We need a new reservoir in the area before this quantity of building starts.
There seems to be no consideration given to existing residents who have bought & renovated their homes and now face disruption.
Get developers to do up the empty banks etc in Bexhill town - affordable flats and minimal transport costs.