I want to register my objection to building on field ref bx22 We do not have the infrastructure to cope with even more development Barnhall Rd has become so busy and congested since we moved here twenty years ago We already have more than our fair share of new developments The Drs surgery would be swamped I am already waiting three weeks for an appointment at Little Common Surgery We moved here for a more peaceful life in our retirement Enough is Enough No more new homes in our small area.

Objection to BX19 on 2 grounds. Firstly there is no off street parking for the train station and removing the car park will result in much more parking on residential roads. Secondly the area highlighted includes an area of natural habitat. Any building there will eliminate this area and i cannot see how there would be a biodiversity net gain

I object to building plans for the north of haven Brook avenue (BX36 & BX37).

Object to BEX 36 and BEX 37 both of these fall outside the perimeter of Haven Brook Avenue which was constructed to form the out edge of
Future developments.
Once Rother District council Allows waves of greenbelt land on the outside of this road to be developed there will be no buffer zone to the countryside beyond and will set a president for linear infill along this road on the outer edge of any countryside edges road .
As for BEX 36 access via WaterMill lane this not feasible due to the public right of way access and crossover point and existing street furniture Not to mention the 60 mile an hour speed limit which traffic will be exiting into.
As a third generation running Cobbs hill caravan and camping park which is one of Bexhills only small tourismin the Liesure sites. We have gone to great personal expense to future proof the tourism and leisure area with purchasing surrounding greenbelt where possible .Old plan land BEX0165 .
If development is permit on BEX 36 and BEX 37 what was a quiet countryside retreat will turn into a very small green pocket with in a massive housing estate.

I object to BX36 and BX37
You must have boundaries other wise buildings will be going up everywhere and the historic/natural landscape will change forever.

I object to BX36 and BX37
I do not think you should build on the north side of haven brook avenue, build on the urban areas before you start building on the country side.

Has his previously been said BX 38 is an extension of north Bexhill , and seems to me can only help with the housing crisis which exists in that area. I hole hardly think it's a great idea having ben a long-term resident local to the area.

I object to BX36 and BX37 north of Haven Brook Avenue.
BX36 area is very high so housing will be highly visible changing the surrounding countryside views.

BX15
RDC should protect the public interest and not overturn the Deed of Trust which states this council owned land should be retained as public open space I fear this could set a dangerous precedent and leave the rest of Broad Oak Park at the mercy of developers.
This field is a vital wildlife habitat in this urban environment particularly with the addition of 210 homes of BX14.
As this site is within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area any development here combined with others in Bexhill will have a detrimental effect on flood risk management evidenced by the heavy prolonged rainfall of recent months.
There should not have been a condition in BX14 to allow vehicular access southwards to BX15 as this implies that the decision has already been made in favour of development despite the Deed of Trust made on 10/7/2013 and signed by representatives of RDC.

I strongly feel that after many years of disinvestment and neglect, well thought out development that attracts growth and movement to the town is to be encouraged. With huge increases in working from home and AI assisted businesses , any seaside town that is actively renewing , improving and finding ways of upgrading it’s offering , will attract younger folk and families from places such as London where it is prohibitively too expensive for them to rent or buy. Having lived and grown up in Hastings and Bexhill I feel that both towns need to keep seeking to move forward and be an aspirational place to live.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and national policy. Its siting would result in unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring dwellings, causing harm to residential amenity, contrary to NPPF Chapter 12. The site lacks suitable independent vehicular access and relies on third party land, raising concerns regarding deliverability and highway safety, contrary to NPPF Chapter 9. The undeveloped greenfield site contributes to local ecological networks, providing habitat and commuting routes for birds, bats and other priority species. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation, undermining ecological connectivity and failing to demonstrate avoidance of harm or secured biodiversity net gain, contrary to NPPF Chapter 15 and the emerging Rother Local Plan “Green to the Core” objectives. The proposal represents unjustified encroachment into the countryside and contributes to incremental urbanisation and unacceptable change of a Field of Trust which was placed for a reason; to stop such countryside destruction.

I am not objecting in principle to development but I would like to know to what extent does the plan take into consideration the implications of the Shoreline Management Plan, in particular the projected rise in sea level and the corresponding impact on groundwater levels.

I object to BX14 & BX15.
*The area is full of wildlife that have been established for generations. *There are fox dens in BX15 - and there is a buzzard, field mice & rabbits - where will these animals go?
*There is one secondary school in the area which takes 1500 pupils and is oversubscribed every year.
*The doctors' surgeries in the area have high number of patients already.
*The access road into Fryatts Way, Ellerslie Lane is a single lane road with no pavement.
*There is already damage to Fryatts Way from the heavy vehicles used when building the new houses already in place.
*The sewage problems in Bexhill will only be exacerbated with another lot of new build homes.

BX5
It would be a detriment to the community for the scout hut to have to be relocated. The scout leaders work so hard voluntarily and put their all in to maintaining the hut and providing this voluntary activity for the children. Having volunteered with the scouts myself I can see how much the children get out of it. I appreciate the proposal says there will be an alternate or relocation of the hut but obviously this will take time and it may be relocated to an area that some families cannot easily get to and therefore will be unable to attend. There is not enough as it is for young people in Bexhill, losing the scout hut will only contribute to this further.

I wish to object to the size and scope of the proposed development adjacent to beeching Road, BX4 on your plans. I agree that creating housing on brownfield sites is preferable to greenfield and have no objection to this, but to remove the parking with only the vaige mention of replacing it on the site is foolish to my mind. I also object to mention of moving the scout hut to an alternate location as the recent history of this building, the burning down and fundraising to re-build on the site was long and hard and to see this effort be washed away in the persuit of housing would be heartbreaking. Again, I want to see the site developed but not at the cost of longstanding local amenities.

Although improvements to the town are needed, there is too much emphasis on new housing. Little thought appears to have been given to the infrastructure to support any new housing development such as Doctors, Dentists and general road improvements.

Site Bex 8 (old high school) now has an allocation of 80 dwellings.The existing planning permission (RR/2019/430P)for this site was for 52, an increase of 54% for the same defined area.80 dwellings for the site is untenable. Cramming the houses in makes for a souless sprawl and would create huge problems of traffic congestion in what is already a very busy area near to the nursery and primary schools, leisure centre, cadet drill hall and difficult access onto the main A259 road.

Ref BX19 Gorses car park and open space
I totally reject the proposal to build 10 new dwellings on this site. The car park is needed for the railway station and visiting Cooden Beach. Now that the council has agreed to put restrictions and parking bays by Collington Station, in all likelihood, commuters will start to use Cooden Beach station instead as it's free to park (at present). This will now start blocking the narrow roads in The Gorses and surrounding area on all days of the week. It is already busy on weekends, particularly on good weather days. It's very shortsighted to keep taking away car parks and free parking.
My other objection is the wording on ii) "Be limited to the existing car parking area, unless any loss would be replaced by equivalent provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location". This wording is left too open, in that you could destroy the wildlife habitat that exists in the hedgerows and trees, but move it to another location. There are foxes and many bird species nest in this area. It should be protected at all costs. Biodiversity takes years to develop - you can't just move it to somewhere else!

I strongly object to the proposed development BX22.

It would harm the openness and rural character of the countryside; being highly prominent it would urbanise the whole area.

There is already a significant amount of surface water and flooding on the proposed site.

This site is situated within the Pevensey Levels SAC and SSSI catchment, with historic public rights of way, and priority habitats. It would cause irreparable damage to the local biodiversity.

The A259 Barnhorn Road is already at full capacity. How can it possibly cope with greater traffic volumes?

The sewage pipe on Barnhorn Road is 9 inches in diameter and was due for replacement 30 years ago. How could it cope?

The doctor’s surgeries in Bexhill are already overwhelmed. Even if a new surgery is built it won’t be appointed new doctors, they will simply be spread thinly across existing practices.

BX7 - We would strongly urge the Council to retain Sainsbury's and its existing Car Park, as the Supermarket is a significant amenity for the Town Centre and of a larger than a standard "Sainsbury's Local" size which means that it is used for large shops, for many people necessitating a car. It is debatable whether the store would continue to be viable without a Car Park, and it would be a significant loss to the town.

I strongly object to the plans for BX22

This site within the Pevensey Levels SAC and SSSI catchment, has historic public rights of way, and priority habitats. Any development would cause significant damage to the local biodiversity, where Bats, Mistle Thrush, Woodpeckers, Kites & Kestrels along with migrating birds such as Swallows, House Martins and Cuckoos thrive. There is also an adjacent ancient Woodland where hundreds of birds and Rooks fly to roost each night, and an ancient pond with moorhens, frogs, toads and lizards.

This proposal would harm the openness and rural character of the countryside.

During winter months there is excessive surface water flooding, even on the higher fields which catch run off water from the A259

There is also the continual issue of congestion with traffic on the A259. No improvements will lessen the impact by continuing to build along this extremely busy piece of arterial road.

Concerning BX19

We need to retain the car park. A bigger would be better. Even if we have to pay a car park charge.

We should be encouraging use of public transport. This is the only car park for Cooden Beach Station.

The current car park in Wainwright Road currently fulfils its objective. Whilst also provides community parking for attendees of community events within the 9th Bexhill Scout Hall. To loose such a facility to housing would be detrimental to the future development of the 9th Bexhill Scouting community.
By keeping the Car Park at Wainwright Road, vital car parking will still be available to visitors to the 9th Bexhill Hall. Many residents of Reginald and Windsor Roads utilise the car park when no parking spaces are available by the roadside of their homes. With the carpark gone then even more residential roads will be full of parked cars. 200 houses = 200 cars

TIME TO LEAVE BEXHILL - it's becoming a dumping-ground for new housing, combined with a significant shortage of support facilities including surgeries for doctors and dentists, shops, primary schools and nursery facilities. Without a shadow of doubt, there will soon be a need for another secondary school in the town; where will that be sited? Furthermore, I suspect collusion between the various builders by developing individually relatively 'small' estates adjacent to each other so as to remove any need for contribution to the local population whether it be financial or in kind, whereas a single large development could be required to provide such assets.
I call to mind particularly the various developments along Mount View Street (there is actually no 'view' there now!) between Wrestwood Road and Coombe Valley Road - and which now are spreading to the north of that road as well.
UTTERLY DEPLORABLE!!!

Objection to Draft Local Plan Site Allocation BX50 – Sidley Car Park

I wish to object to the proposed allocation of Site BX50 (Sidley car park behind the Ninfield Road shops) for residential development in the Draft Rother Local Plan.

This car park provides important public parking that supports the viability of the local shopping parade and surrounding businesses in Sidley. The loss or reduction of parking in this location risks harming the local economy by making it more difficult for residents and visitors to access these services.

Sidley already experiences significant parking pressures due to the density of surrounding residential streets and the limited availability of off-street parking. Even a partial loss of parking spaces could increase congestion on nearby roads and lead to further on-street parking problems, affecting both residents and local businesses.

In addition, local infrastructure in Sidley is already under considerable strain. Schools, GP surgeries, and other public services are operating close to capacity, and further housing development without clear and deliverable infrastructure improvements risks placing additional pressure on these already stretched services.

The site is also small and constrained, and introducing residential development alongside retained parking could create design, access, and amenity challenges. It is not clear that a development of approximately ten apartments could be accommodated without negatively affecting the character and functionality of the area.

Given the importance of this parking facility to local residents and businesses, and the existing pressures on local infrastructure, I believe the site should be removed from the list of proposed housing allocations in the Local Plan.

I therefore ask the Council to reconsider the inclusion of Site BX50 and to retain the site as a public car park serving the Sidley shopping area.

Policy BX50
My main concerns are you will be removing a safe dropoff and pick up point for the school, damage a struggling high street , push more parked cars into residential area, people who rely on local community projects , as a community we are struggling at the minute, this is a massive safety issue as well with the rising traffic pressure in Bexhill to extreme development with out the infrastructure in place , Sidley high street is important to the community don't make it even harder on business and residents

(Policy BX50) I object to the use of the car park being changed for housing as it is vital for the village to continue having the use for its customers.
As a business our customers regularly use this car park.
Parents use it to park when dropping children to school and picking up. It is always busy with most spaces being taken in business hours.

I object to the plans to use this site for housing. Sidley businesses rely on this site for customer parking, especially given the parking restrictions already in force. Parents dropping and collecting their children from school also rely on this site for parking. To take this away from the people of Sidley would damage local businesses and cause further congestion.

Policy BX50
I am against the planning for the new houses in Sidley car park. This car park is important to the community, for school drop offs and shopping in the village. This will ruin Sidley for the local business with parking elsewhere very limited. Plus the local Doctors is already over stretched. The sarah lee trust provides a service to cancer patients who use this car park. The food bank in Sidley Street is also needed and will struggle without the parking. Sidley high street is important to the local community. Lets not ruin this like Bexhill has been ruined. Learn from your mistakes. Please.

Will be detrimental to the villages existence where can people park to promote the shops survival it will kill the heart of the village in a world that’s already fighting