I strongly object to yet more properties being build in which is an already over subscribed area the village is almost surrounded with new builds where are the children supposed to go to school what Dr will they be sent to same with dentists no infrastructure in place what about shops for if the only car park is demolished what will happen to the already struggling shops .. there won’t be a village it will have had the life squeezed out of it community spirit will die .. businesses will fail.

BX70 Sidley Carpark
To take away valuable parking from Sidley is extremely misguided. There is a school 50 yards away with 300 pupils with parents and staff using this daily. Sidley businesses rely heavily on this carpark as there is virtually no on street parking
Most days this car park is full and to take away a proportion of this would be hugely detrimental to an already deprived area to build 10 flats.
This is a poor choice of site if this was to go ahead you would be taking the livelihood away from many small traders, making the school runs impossible for parents, clogging up local roads with all day parking of people visiting Sidley this would be devastating for the area please remove this from the local plan.
There must be better sites for 10 flats.

I live and work in sidley. You will be jeopardizing my job and put me and my family into poverty if we lose the carpark as our customers will have next to nowhere to park. The school needs it and all other amenities too.

On the whole I agree with development of the brownfield sites in Bexhill, with the exception of the resiting of the existing scout hut and removing the car parks for the town, both of which I strongly object to.
The excessive development and wanton destruction of our greenfield sites is less easy to stomach, being both short sighted and a disgraceful legacy for our government and all those involved in planning. This plan will not provide the affordable housing needed and our current infrastructure is already at breaking point - it cannot support more housing.

Re BX15 and BX14
As we are having 210 houses built on BX14 site, to add another 35 (BX15) in another adjacent field, with no access apart from Fryats Way onto Ellerslie Lane is dangerous apart from anything else. Ellerslie Lane is a narrow pot filled Lane, no pavements, few lights and has become a shortcut from the Combe Valley by pass ( via St Marys Lane) to the main A259 onto Eastbourne. To add another possible 300plus cars is unbelievable. We do not have the infrastructure in place to cope. Southern Water have already stated they cannot supply all the houses that are to be built, let alone the sewerage problem. The Doctors surgeries cannot cope at present, the schools are full the roads (lanes) wont cope, and we don't want to lose our greenfield sites .
I strongly object to BX 15 proposal ( and BX14)

First, I object to a proforma that requires me to either 'support' or 'object' when it invites 'comments'. A comment should not oblige a respondent to take a position on a matter about which you provide limited information.

Secondly, my comment relates to the zones BX20-22, south of Barnhorn Road in West Bexhill. This area surrounds Barnhorn Manor which dates back to the middle ages. Accordingly, please could I ask what provision for an archaeological survey will be made if this area is subject to development?

My comment refers to all four proposed sites regarding loss of parking places but in particular to Eversley Road.

It makes no sense to deprive the public & residents of existing car parks by redeveloping these sites which will merely increase parking requirements for any given development.

There is already insufficient parking in the town for Bexhill residents/visitors who wish to shop & local town residents wishing to park bearing in mind the demographic, nature of accommodation with a lack of off street parking. The issue is being further compounded by new housing estates being built & planned around Bexhill.

I recently visited all sites & found them to be well used & populated with vehicles.

I am writing to object and comment on the above Local Plan.
The areas I am commenting on are BX20 to BX29.
I feel that there is an unfair and disproportionate (at least 50%) amount of development proposed in the West and North Bexhill.

I have lived in Little Common for 10 years and in that time have seen it totally change. There has been a significant impact from development by way of traffic along the A259 and roads leading onto this where there has also been significant development.

Where the A259 crosses the roundabout at Little Common, it is extremely difficult to join the traffic at Little Common, as it is a continual stream straight across the roundabout.

It is also dangerous and sometimes almost impossible for pedestrians to cross the road at the roundabout in Little Common and mostly they are reliant on a kind motorist who stops to let them cross the road. These are few and far between.

The traffic on the A259 is often at a standstill because there is so much of it.

BX25 and BX26 both developments will result in considerably increased traffic flows into and out of the A259 junction at Brookland Road.

BX22 there is no access road to this site so how can it be developed? Again, access onto A259 and further traffic?

Together, BX27 and BX28 with access directly onto the A259 very close together near Coneyburrow Lane, causing further severe impact on traffic flowing along A259 Barnhorn Road.

BX23 access onto the A259 via Stowe Drive and Brooklands Road. Further traffic accessing onto Barnhorn Road. Stowe Drive was originally, so I understand, an emergency access road and was not intended to be used for residential traffic entering the Rosewood Estate.

The area allocated for development of BX23 is extremely prone to flooding. Part of the Ancient Woodland bounding the site is actually called “Wet Wood” which might indicate that this has always been the case. The stream running across this site often reaches to the top of the banks and above in heavy wet weather. Which I understand is what we are to expect in the future. The farm field allocated for development itself is prone to flooding. It is also home to many small mammals and the Ancient Woodland and farm field is home to many badgers. It also houses bats and owls. With this farmland built on, these animals have little source of food supply. The woodland is also home to the lesser spotted woodpecker, which is also in decline.

There is a complete lack of infrastructure to cope with this overdevelopment of North and West Bexhill.

The proposed sites (BX20-BX28) will be connecting to the main 9” sewer pipe running along Barnhorn Road. I understand that Southern Water has already admitted that this is incapable of coping with current capacity during storm conditions

I understand that fresh water supply is currently supplied from one tank at Ninfield.

As well as the supply of fresh water there is also the huge problem with sewage. I understand that Southern Water would require to upgrade their network along Barnhorn Road. This could take at least two years and would require Barnhorn Road to be dug up from Conveyburrow Lane to the roundabout in Little Common.

These developments could increase the number of people wishing to use Little Common medical centre by 5000. This is just not sustainable. We already have great difficulty is getting GP and NH Dental appointments. Since the new Medical Centre is also to be access from Barnhorn Road, this Medical Centre itself is adding to the traffic problems.

Bexhill and more so Little Common have long traditionally been a retirement area. Therefore, local employment has not been a problem but with a possible increase of 30,000 people in Bexhill area. Where will these people work?
Summary
Far too much of our local farmland is being taken for housing. I do not think that this area of West Bexhill is suitable for such a huge influx of building. Little Common is a small village, already earmarked for huge developments at Clavering Park and Spindlewood.
These developments are causing a huge increase in traffic and pollution.
There is insufficient infrastructure, particularly with regard to water and drainage.
There are too few schools and teachers.
There are too few doctors and dentists.
The hospitals at Eastbourne and Hastings are at full capacity.
There is little employment.

We object to the proposed development sites BX20-BX28 on the grounds of the lack of the essential infrastructure and the A259 Barnhorn Road already operating above capacity

Background

The 1950s:

Little Common was a small village, an RAF camp was situated at Northeye and Barnhorn Road was so lightly trafficked that cycling along the A259 Barnhorn Road was a safe option. The 9” sewer pipe under Barnhorn Road could easily deal with the sewage from the buildings on either side of the road and from the side roads.

1960s onwards:

Considerable housing development took place over many years, eg. the area around the Gorseway, Spring Lane, Peartree Lane, Birkdale, Spindlewood Drive, then Rosewood Park, so Little Common grew into a large village and the traffic increased but the basic infrastructure did not change.

There is still no alternative route from Pevensey to Bexhill and the 9” sewer pipe has not been upgraded.

2015 onwards:

The traffic along Barnhorn Road has become relentless, as acknowledged by the Planning Inspector at the Appeal for the next-to-Ashridge Court development. He also stated that the development was not sustainable because most travel would be by car. He allowed the development only because of the need for housing. No-one cycles along the road, with its huge lorries and incomplete cycle lane.

The current situation

Air pollution

The Barnhorn Road section of the A259 trunk road is so heavily trafficked, particularly at peak times, that queues build up on both sides of the Barnhorn Green /Rosewood Park traffic lights, increasing the air pollution (PM10 & PM2.5 particulates and black dust particles from tyres and brakes). This is evident in a layer of black ‘dust’ on our car parked on our driveway on certain mornings. The move to electric vehicles will not reduce the black deposits in the air we all breath in.

Traffic Congestion

Driving out of a driveway onto the opposite side of the road is hazardous; waiting for gaps in the traffic on both side of the road to coincide requires considerable patience. Visitors are appalled by what we experience every day. Barnhorn Road does not have a good reputation, we receive a lot of sympathy when we say where we live!

Sewage

Houses on the south side of Barnhorn Road by the Barnhorn Green/Rosewood Park traffic lights already suffer a sewage outflow in their gardens from Rosewood Park when there is heavy rain at night. The narrow 9” sewer pipe cannot cope with the current amount of effluent, never mind any more.

Possible housing developments already in train

Spindlewood: 146 houses with access onto Barnhorn Road

Medical Centre at Barnhorn Green with many treatment rooms; 86 parking spaces and more for light industrial units

BX28 Northeye: 384 dwellings

The above developments will increase congestion on an already overloaded road and the traffic lights will change with even greater frequency, increasing the queueing.

Conclusion

In the current circumstances, Barnhorn Road cannot take more housing and more vehicles from those houses with its present infrastructure. It is already the most congested road in Bexhill so that the 99 bus is unreliable.
The 9” sewer pipe must be replaced before further development either side of the road is permitted.
Any Outline Planning permission must not be granted until all the necessary infrastructure has been built.
It must be ‘Infrastructure first.’

Sites BX20-BX28 should be removed from the Local Development Plan 2025-2042

I am writing to object to the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025 2042.

Objections

The draft plan is unsustainable with regard to sustainble transport,road infrastructure,water and sewer provision, health and education.

Sites (BX20-BX28) appear to have over 70% of agricultural land.This is contary to UK Government Policy for development on brownfield as against greenfield land. Therefore the Draft Plan is contary to the concept of Sustainable Development.

Many of the allocated sites for development support biodiversity at present. Research undoubtably tells us that, access to nature contributes to wellbeing and mental health.Future access via the public footpaths which would cross the identified housing estates rather than countryside would be likely to increase health and wellbeing concerns.

The areas of small fields, hedgerow, wetland and woodland presently support bird species currently on the RSPB Red List (greenfinch) together with other rapidly declining species. Sussex Ornithological Society Bird Report 2024 refers to the dramatic decline in farmland birds (page 214) due amongst other things to housing development on farmland. The proposed development would provide much reduced space for endangered species and nature in general.

With regard to BX23 and BX24 and B27: Proposed Development would remove agricultural land and biodiverity; public footpaths which previously overlooked countryside would overlook housing estates rather than green spaces. Birdsong would become non existant.

Development at BX23 and BX24 would use the existing road through Rosewood Park for construction traffic and future housing needs. Inadequate provision for road transport to the sites is a major concern for me.

Little Common Roundabout is becoming increasingly gridlocked: with traffic regulary queuing for far too long. The draft local plan does not mitigate the drastic increase in the volumes of vehicles from the proposed developments which would certainly make matters worse.

I attended the exhibition in Little Common 12 March 2026.. the closing date for objections is 23 March 2026. Surely this is insufficient time for members of the public to consider the fact before responding to such an important matter. Many people I have spoken to were unaware of the presentations.

Dear Rother District Council
I am writing to object to the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042.
My objections fall into two main areas.
1. The principles underpinning the Draft Plan.
1.1 Of the sites allocated for development (BX20-BX28) over 80% is on current agricultural land. This is contrary to the UK government policy of development on brownfield as against greenfield land. As such the key principle underpinning the Draft Plan is contrary to the concept of Sustainable Development.
1.2 The Draft Plan is also unsustainable from other important perspectives, namely sustainable transport, road infrastructure, water and sewer provision, health and education.
1.3 Of the sites allocated for development, many support biodiversity at present. As research increasingly shows, access to nature (in this case via the public footpaths which cross the housing sites identified) helps with mental health. Removing proximity to nature for existing residents of Little Common is likely to increase health and wellbeing concerns
1.4 The patchwork of small fields, hedgerows and pockets of woodland and wetland which make up the bulk of the housing sites identified support nature at a local and regional level. There are bird species present which are on the RSPB Red list (greenfinch) and other fast declining species such as chaffinch, swallow and song thrush. Housing development at the density suggested (mainly 35 units per hectare) will provide little or no space for nature and these endangered species.
2. Site Specific Concerns.
2.1 BX23 and BX24. Development on this land will remove agricultural land, local biodiversity and recreation provision via public footpaths. The hedgerows, field trees and stream and wetlands which currently support local and regional ecology via the diverse pattern of habitats will be lost at a housing density of 35 units per hectare. Although the footpaths will be retained, views will not be of nature but of housing development. Bird song will no longer exist.
2.2 Development at BX23 and BX24 will also compromise the visual setting of Little Common from the west and north, as does development at BX27.
2.3 Development at both BX23 and BX24 has inadequate provision for connection to existing road infrastructure. It is also car based, is too far removed from rail services to be considered sustainable, and has no direct links to local bus provision.
I must add also that the timeframe between the public exhibition in Little Common (12 March 2026) and closing date for objection (23 March 2026) is too limited for effective democracy.

Ref. Policy BX50, Sidley car park is an important local asset, it woul harm the area if it was reducer or taken away. Most days the car park is fully utilised, there being very little on street or other parking in the area around the shops.

I am writing to strongly object to development plans around Barnhorn Road in the Local Development Plan.

BX 21 – BX 28
As I live on Barnhorn Road, I am very aware EVERY DAY of the relentless flow of traffic and the massive congestion on the A259 on the 1½ miles between the end of the marsh section of the A259 and Little Common Roundabout. Coombe Valley Way has only exacerbated the problem because it increased the traffic on Barnhorn Road. A Bypass should have been built years ago between Pevensey and the back of Hastings, but that has not happened and it would take very many years to plan and build one now. This infrastructure would need to be in place and functioning before there was further development on Barnhorn Road. We residents live with the resulting excessively heavy traffic, air pollution and all too frequent accidents. The thought of possibly 3000 more cars ALL having direct access to this stretch of road fills me with horror. There should be a survey to assess the amount and flow rate of traffic using this area already.

BX22
This development would be far too close to the Pevensey Levels SSSI, SAC and wetlands which are frequently subject to flooding. The ecological integrity of this area MUST be maintained. There is no way that developers can guarantee that foul water will not flow onto the Pevensey Levels. Gardens of houses on the south side of Barnhorn Road by the Barnhorn Green (Rosewood Park) traffic lights already suffer from sewage overflow from Rosewood Park because of insufficient sewer capacity. The narrow Barnhorn Road sewer pipe cannot cope with waste from yet more houses when it cannot even cope with current demands.

BX20, BX21, BX21, BX22, BX23, BX24, BX25, BX26, BX27, BX28
Access onto Barnhorn Road is already hazardous because of the constant flow of traffic. There will inevitably be many more vehicles on Barnhorn Road from the housing development on the Northeye site and also to and from the Medical Centre on Barnhorn Green (Rosewood Park). There is NO safe access onto a heavily trafficked road with its bends and congestion-inducing traffic lights for Rosewood Park. Moreover, there are insufficient school places in the area to cope with the children of the residents of almost 2000 additional houses.

Essential infrastructure MUST be in place before any further development can take place.

Regarding sites to the south of Barnhorn Road A259:
Although site BX20 has Outline Planning Consent the proposed principal access to the site off A259 Barnhorn road has serious deficiencies (see Report on Planning Application RR/2023/1427/P “Review of Proposed new Ghost Island Junction on Barnhorn Road A259”). This matter has been acknowledged in an outstanding objection from National Highways, namely:
• Visibility at the junction;
• Substandard geometry and width at the site access;
• inadequate pedestrian- traffic intervisibility at the junction;
• Severely deficient safety for pedestrians (walking to the nearest bus stop) and for cyclists;
• Creation of a rat run through site BX20 to avoid the Little Common roundabout.

The surface water (rainfall) drainage proposals for the site cause serious flooding to adjacent properties along Maple Walk as noted by consultee the Pevensey and Cuckmere levels Water Level Management Board who have an outstanding objection.

Both of the above matters have been outstanding for more than 6 months. They should either be resolved before the site is included in any future Draft Local Plan or the planning applications and site should be withdrawn.

Regarding site BX21:
Access to BX21 has the same severe deficiencies as BX20 namely that:
• Visibility at the A259 Barnhorn Road junction;
• Severely substandard geometry of the site access;
• inadequate pedestrian- traffic intervisibility at the access road junction with Barnhorn Road resulting in severe safety defects for pedestrians on the south side of Barnhorn Road;
• Severely deficient safety for pedestrians (walking to the nearest bus stop) and for cyclists;

In the case of site BX22:
• The site extends to the edge of the SSSI Pevensey Levels;
• The site has recurrent very high winter ground water which results in serious problems because of surface water drainage issues.
• The actual impermeable area of the development will lead to elevation of winter water levels in the Pevensey Levels;
• The foul water sewage from the development will have to be pumped but the existing 9 inch sewer in Barnhorn Road has no adequate spare capacity. Until several major lengths of sewer in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX22 can not be occupied;
• The majority of BX22 is more than 500 metres from bus stops on Barnhorn Road and more than 1.4km from the local centre of Little Common. It does not comply with Rother’s policies on transport sustainability and would be predominantly dependent on car use;
• Very few people would routinely use pedal cycles for commuting or major commercial journeys for such a distance even if a separate cycle way was included because of unreliable and adverse British weather;
• Access to BX22 is stated to be arranged from A259 Barnhorn Road somehow, though there is no obvious access point. Traffic flow from a 400 house development will overwhelm the capacity of the Barnhorn Road junctions, particularly at the approach to the Little Common roundabout, increasing the existing overload. This would cause excessive delays and would be inconsistent with the operation of the SRN of which A259 Barnhorn Road is a part.

I am a resident of Bexhill living near the A259. The road is already very congested and any new developments in West Bexhill will lead to even worse congestion. Recent developments on the Barnhorn Road have already had a significant adverse impact. When I read that the Highways Agency(HA) will be consulted that is no consolation at all. I suffered years of delays whilst the HA spent millions on the new cycle lane between Eastbourne and Lewes which seems solely to have benefitted leisure cyclists whilst cars crawl. When will we have a Bexhill bypass to the link road?
Inaddition to the above local water supply is an issue as we already suffer many outages and hosepipe bans.

BX28 in relation to discussion about sports pitches at Northeye and need for a new location for these on the allocation site possibly being required. Sport England is concerned that other parts of the site may not be suitable due to undulation/ gradients, ground conditions etc. A feasibility assessment by qualified agronomist is required, all sports facilities including sports pitches and ancillary facilities to be of at least equivalent if not better quality and quantity and to Sport England and relevant NGB design standards and specifications.

Objection to Policy Ref: BX19
Site Name: The Gorses
The site is home to many animal species including : foxes, goldfinches and primroses which i believe are protected under the Countryside Act 1981.

Please do not do this, shops will close and Sidley will be nothing but a ghost town with just betting shops and Take - aways !!!!
Stop thinking about now and what you need and think about the future of what you will create.

To whom it may concern ,

It is indeed a matter of grave concern - the Draft ,or should I say Daft , proposals for "Local Development". Far from Development which should be positive, we shall have only negative Deterioration and Decay

As a resident of Barnhorn Road, as it is now, I , and others who live along its length, daily run the gauntlet of gaining access to the A259 - facing a seemingly endless stream of traffic . I speak to people who hesitate to visit as they fear the challenge. Common sense tells one that any additional traffic can only cause a decline in air quality and an increase in the danger of accidents. No point in suggesting one gives up one's car as we only have an unreliable bus service to fall back on. They in turn ,anyway, along with ambulances and delivery vehicles etc etc all are impacted now and the situation can only get worse.C

As well as adding to the traffic congestion the sites BX20 ,BX21 and BX22 will have harmful consequences for the Pevensey Levels ( SSSI , SAC and Ramscar designated wetlands) In this age when we are all made aware of the importance of preserving our precious , and fast disappearing, forests, wetland and other areas essential for flora and fauna and delaying climate change, why would you contemplate destroying the little we have left?

There can be no excuse for your Council not being aware of the dire state of the sewage and other water facilities in this area. Almost daily in the press and other media we hear alarming reports of water shortages or sewage spills. As far as Barnhorn Road and environs are concerned - we are served by a mere 9" sewer pipe . A child in Primary School would be able to work out that such a pipe, already under severe strain, would not cope with the effluent of the nearly 2,000 proposed dwellings of BX20-BX24 and BX26-BX28 . Plus sewage from the Medical Centre and industrial units of BX25. As it is, the extra 35 Residential Units built by Churchill on Barnhorn Road will be adding to the flow. I know of people on Barnhorn Road who have already ,in the past , experienced sewage running in their homes when there has been stormy weather.

Where will the children of all these extra dwellings go to school ? Where will the sick, the elderly , the infirm go for help? There may be a building at BX25 but from whence cometh the medical staff ? We all must be aware of the shortage of doctors - or certainly the difficulty in getting appointments or treatment as the population of this area stands at the moment. .

Has not Little Common suffered enough already?

I plead with you to exercise caution and common sense when considering the Plan.

Yours hopefully,

Margaret C Barman ( Mrs)

Site Ref: BX22

I would like to register my objections to the above plan, in particular the following points:

1. The A259 (Barnhorn Road) is already severely overloaded and it is extremely difficult to drive out on to it, especially turning right from the south side towards Little Common, which I do most days. The traffic is extremely heavy and very little will stop to let me out, meaning I have to leave earlier every time, especially if I have an appointment. Also trying to cross on foot is practically impossible at the western end, as there are no halfway bollards beyond the traffic lights at Rosewood Park. Presently there is no part of Barnhorn Road where access could be made to this site snd, in any case, it would further impact the already impossible volume of traffic.

2. All sites BX20-BX28 will be connected to the existing 9" sewer pipe, running along Barnhorn Road, which is already severely overloaded. There is also flooding experienced because of run-off from the high density housing estate onto the Pevensey Levels.

3. Fresh water supply is currently only supplied by one tank at Ninfield.

4. Regardless of what is promised in new housing areas, doctors surgeries are not provided and the Little Common surgery is already fully subscribed and cannot cope with the volume of extra patients.

I hope that these points will be seriously taken into account in any deliberations of this planning application.

Yours faithfully,

Frances Lingard (Mrs)

Policy Reference BX18 - Land west of Pages Lane, Bexhill
1. This is a letter of objection to an inclusion for development in the Rother Local Plan 2025 2042 – this inclusion being Policy Reference BX16 – Land west of Pages Lane, Bexhill (i.e. on the corner with The Barnhams).
2. This letter's objection to the inclusion of Policy Reference BX16 for development is raised for just one reason; the resultant devastation and obliteration of a valuable wildlife habitat.
3. Badgers and their Setts are protected by law. The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) strictly prohibits any negligent (or malicious) act which disturbs badgers or their homes.
4. Any development of this meadow on the corner of Pages Lane and The Barnhams will result in the loss of a valuable habitat.
5. Indeed it is worrying that it appears Rother District Council have not undertaken any meaningful Environmental Impact Assessment which would have immediately indicated the unsuitability of this meadow location for development.
6. This apparent failure to assess the site rather undermines Rother District Council's claim in its Rother Local Plan Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version dated January 2026 that “A careful design will be needed to retain mature trees as far as possible and provide a net gain for biodiversity” for the development of BX16.
7. Destroying a valuable habitat is not a net gain for biodiversity.
8. Rother District Council should hang its heads in shame.
9. It is noted that the only reference to badgers in the 620 page Local Plan is on page 523 (Policy Reference RB2) and that inclusion is not encouraging.
10. In terms of the current Planning Application for a Care Home (Planning Reference RR/2026/0059/FULL) at this location, I am given to understand the Badger Trust will be providing their own Environmental Impact Assessment.
11. As an aside it was disappointing to learn about the Public Consultation for this Local Plan from a chance meeting rather than any communications received from Rother District Council.
12. Environment at the ‘BX16’ meadow.
13. For many decades animals (including Woodpeckers) have enjoyed a largely uninterrupted existence foraging in the meadow on the corner of Pages Lane and The Barnhams, Bexhill on Sea. The extent of foraging across the meadow is visually apparent.
14. The meadow has seen little human interruption, for in 1952 (or thereabouts) a tall Medium Wave transmitter was placed in the meadow; its slender towers and wiring having minimal impact on the trees and grassland.
15. As a consequence the meadow is publicly inaccessible and sees minimal human intrusion. This has permitted wildlife to thrive in what is essentially a ‘safe’ wildlife oasis in Collington.
16. Except now the existence of the radio antenna and its two supporting towers have enabled the Local Authority to euphemistically describe this meadow as a ‘brownfield’ site ready for development – albeit at the expense of the natural habitat and home.
17. This meadow is the only area in the neighbourhood where wildlife is essentially uninterrupted.
18. Whilst access exists via a narrow corridor of railway land between Westcourt Drive and Cooden Sea Road bridges, this corridor is largely tree lined with an unpaved railway maintenance footway running alongside the boundary fence and little or no foraging potential.
19. Furthermore, from my local knowledge (as a retired career railwayman including having much interaction with the local Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd vegetation control teams) I am not aware of the existence of any other suitable habitat along this section of railway line.
20. Travelling east along railway land, this railway maintenance footway can provide access into the rear residential gardens that back onto the railway. Except these garden habitats are slowly being fenced off.
21. For example, of the adjacent properties to my address in The Barnhams that could once be accessed for foraging, all but two have (in the last decade) blocked their fences.
22. Travelling east along railway land, this railway maintenance footway could provide access into Collington Woods but this is not that beneficial.
23. Collington Woods are well used recreationally including by dog walkers who let their animals roam to get exercise. Even after dark there is much foot traffic through the woods and use by older youths.
24. Around eight years ago person or persons unknown were laying poisoned bait in the woods to allegedly kill foxes, thus additionally placing dogs on exercise at great risk with the further potential to harm children in the play area and clearing near to the railway line boundary.
25. Essentially Collington Woods is not a safe environment.
26. It is for this reason that (in my opinion) Rother District Council must not include this site (Policy Reference BX16) for development in their local plan for 2025 2042 nor permit any other future development of this site under its statutory duty to protect wildlife.
27. Instead the Local Plan should (as a matter of urgency) be designating Policy Reference BX16 as a protected wildlife sanctuary.

I enclose my specific comments and objections to certain development sites in West Bexhill.
Area BX23 includes a tongue of land south of Kites Nest Wood that is part of the Rosewood Park estate and may be the subject of litigation. This tongue of land contains the two SuDS ponds and associated pipework from the eastern section of the Rosewood Park estate. Hese SuDS ponds cannot be double counted for BX23 development as they are sized for Rosewood Park and are to the south of the Picknill stream.
The proposed new access road would require land raising to pass over existing pipework connecting the Rosewood Park SuDS to the outfall to the Picknill stream and to meet adoption standards.
BX23 is further than the normal acceptable distance and walking time from all local facilities including bus stops which is not sustainable. Residents will be highly dependent on car transport particularly with the British weather through most seasons that does not encourage pedal cycle use.
Access to BX23 is entirely dependent on Brooklands Road and the very limited effective capacity of the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road junction. The traffic from BX23 that does negotiate the traffic signals at the Brookands / Barnhorn junction (the majority of which will turn towards Bexhill) will further overload the Barnhorn Road approach to Little Common roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. These traffic delays on A259 would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the Strategic Road Network, of which A259 is an integral part.
Foul sewage from site BX23 will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but there is also no spare capacity in the existing Barnhorn Road 225mm foul sewer, as admitted by Southern Water. When Rosewood Park foul sewage is pumped out through their rising main overnight to the Barnhorn Road sewer at a time coincident with prolonged heavy rainfall, existing houses and gardens on Barnhorn Road already experience flooding with foul sewage. This is caused by sewage backing up to create a sufficient hydraulic gradient to artificially accelerate the flow in the sewer. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX23 can not proceed to occupation.
For these reasons I object to BX23.

I have the following comments on site BX24:
There is no foul sewer capacity in Sandhurst Lane. The sewage from this area will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road, but the existing 225mm sewer in Barnhorn Road has no spare capacity. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX24 can not proceed to occupation;
The BX24 area is more than 1000 metres from a bus stop and more than 1mile from the local centre of Little Common. Access and would be highly dependent on car use. It does not comply with Rother’s policies on sustainable transport.

My comment on development area BX27:
· There is no sewer in Sandhurst Lane or in Coneyburrow Lane;
· The foul water from this development will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewers in Barnhorn Road have no adequate spare capacity. Flooding of existing properties on Barnhorn Road, when pumping through rising mains coincides with prolonged heavy rainfall and foul sewage backs up to create the necessary hydraulic gradient, has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX27 can not proceed to occupation;
· The northern three quarters of this site is pleasant open countryside, In particular the northwestern edge of the area should remain open to ensure that any development remains out of sight from views from the East Stream and the Picknill Stream in the Pevensey Levels;
· The northern strip of this site is in the drainage basin of the Picknill stream, which is a tributary of the East stream in the Pevensey levels, development here may exacerbate pollution in the Pevensey Levels waterways;
· Access to this development area is proposed from Barnhorn Road and would conflict with Coneyburrow Lane and area BX28;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common. More than half the housing will be well over 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on car use;
· 540 houses on this site would produce substantial additional traffic on Barnhorn Road and would add to existing congestion at the Barnhorn approach at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would directly affect all traffic on the A259 which is an integral part of the national strategic road network (SRN). The extended traffic delay would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the SRN.

My comment on development area BX28 is:
· There is no foul sewer capacity in Coneyburrow Lane;
· Foul sewage from the additional houses in this development area will also have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewer in Barnhorn Road is of very limited capacity and flooding of existing properties further up Barnhorn Road has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX28 can not proceed to occupation;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common and from Bexhill. More than half the residents will be more than 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on unsustainable car travel;
· The additional traffic on Barnhorn Road would exceed the capacity at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in routine extensive queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would be inconsistent with the regional economic objectives and the operation of the SRN.

I enclose my specific comments and objections to certain development sites in West Bexhill.
Area BX23 includes a tongue of land south of Kites Nest Wood that is part of the Rosewood Park estate and may be the subject of litigation. This tongue of land contains the two SuDS ponds and associated pipework from the eastern section of the Rosewood Park estate. Hese SuDS ponds cannot be double counted for BX23 development as they are sized for Rosewood Park and are to the south of the Picknill stream.
The proposed new access road would require land raising to pass over existing pipework connecting the Rosewood Park SuDS to the outfall to the Picknill stream and to meet adoption standards.
BX23 is further than the normal acceptable distance and walking time from all local facilities including bus stops which is not sustainable. Residents will be highly dependent on car transport particularly with the British weather through most seasons that does not encourage pedal cycle use.
Access to BX23 is entirely dependent on Brooklands Road and the very limited effective capacity of the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road junction. The traffic from BX23 that does negotiate the traffic signals at the Brookands / Barnhorn junction (the majority of which will turn towards Bexhill) will further overload the Barnhorn Road approach to Little Common roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. These traffic delays on A259 would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the Strategic Road Network, of which A259 is an integral part.
Foul sewage from site BX23 will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but there is also no spare capacity in the existing Barnhorn Road 225mm foul sewer, as admitted by Southern Water. When Rosewood Park foul sewage is pumped out through their rising main overnight to the Barnhorn Road sewer at a time coincident with prolonged heavy rainfall, existing houses and gardens on Barnhorn Road already experience flooding with foul sewage. This is caused by sewage backing up to create a sufficient hydraulic gradient to artificially accelerate the flow in the sewer. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX23 can not proceed to occupation.
For these reasons I object to BX23.

I have the following comments on site BX24:
There is no foul sewer capacity in Sandhurst Lane. The sewage from this area will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road, but the existing 225mm sewer in Barnhorn Road has no spare capacity. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX24 can not proceed to occupation;
The BX24 area is more than 1000 metres from a bus stop and more than 1mile from the local centre of Little Common. Access and would be highly dependent on car use. It does not comply with Rother’s policies on sustainable transport.

My comment on development area BX27:
· There is no sewer in Sandhurst Lane or in Coneyburrow Lane;
· The foul water from this development will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewers in Barnhorn Road have no adequate spare capacity. Flooding of existing properties on Barnhorn Road, when pumping through rising mains coincides with prolonged heavy rainfall and foul sewage backs up to create the necessary hydraulic gradient, has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX27 can not proceed to occupation;
· The northern three quarters of this site is pleasant open countryside, In particular the northwestern edge of the area should remain open to ensure that any development remains out of sight from views from the East Stream and the Picknill Stream in the Pevensey Levels;
· The northern strip of this site is in the drainage basin of the Picknill stream, which is a tributary of the East stream in the Pevensey levels, development here may exacerbate pollution in the Pevensey Levels waterways;
· Access to this development area is proposed from Barnhorn Road and would conflict with Coneyburrow Lane and area BX28;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common. More than half the housing will be well over 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on car use;
· 540 houses on this site would produce substantial additional traffic on Barnhorn Road and would add to existing congestion at the Barnhorn approach at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would directly affect all traffic on the A259 which is an integral part of the national strategic road network (SRN). The extended traffic delay would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the SRN.

My comment on development area BX28 is:
· There is no foul sewer capacity in Coneyburrow Lane;
· Foul sewage from the additional houses in this development area will also have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewer in Barnhorn Road is of very limited capacity and flooding of existing properties further up Barnhorn Road has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX28 can not proceed to occupation;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common and from Bexhill. More than half the residents will be more than 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on unsustainable car travel;
· The additional traffic on Barnhorn Road would exceed the capacity at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in routine extensive queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would be inconsistent with the regional economic objectives and the operation of the SRN.

BX20: This application has been going for 9 years, the reduced width entrance was agreed based on maximum of 160 properties. Despite agreement in principle for access only, they have still not designed an entrance that is SAFE and fits within land owned by the applicant and/or Highways. The NHPR 25-01 dated 24th October 2025 agreed for 3 months has now expired.
BX21: The additional 20 houses takes this application outside the Access agreement for BX20, which was for maximum of 160 properties. For this to be agreed the entrance will need to be redesigned in line with Roads and Bridges, this is not possible and will not fit on the land owned.
Barnhorn Road, already has heavy traffic congestion, causing air pollution, this will add to this problem.
Sewage pipe is only 9" and during storm conditions cannot cope with existing properties.
Lack of school places for additional properties.

I enclose my specific comments and objections to certain development sites in West Bexhill.
Area BX23 includes a tongue of land south of Kites Nest Wood that is part of the Rosewood Park estate and may be the subject of litigation. This tongue of land contains the two SuDS ponds and associated pipework from the eastern section of the Rosewood Park estate. Hese SuDS ponds cannot be double counted for BX23 development as they are sized for Rosewood Park and are to the south of the Picknill stream.
The proposed new access road would require land raising to pass over existing pipework connecting the Rosewood Park SuDS to the outfall to the Picknill stream and to meet adoption standards.
BX23 is further than the normal acceptable distance and walking time from all local facilities including bus stops which is not sustainable. Residents will be highly dependent on car transport particularly with the British weather through most seasons that does not encourage pedal cycle use.
Access to BX23 is entirely dependent on Brooklands Road and the very limited effective capacity of the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road junction. The traffic from BX23 that does negotiate the traffic signals at the Brookands / Barnhorn junction (the majority of which will turn towards Bexhill) will further overload the Barnhorn Road approach to Little Common roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. These traffic delays on A259 would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the Strategic Road Network, of which A259 is an integral part.
Foul sewage from site BX23 will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but there is also no spare capacity in the existing Barnhorn Road 225mm foul sewer, as admitted by Southern Water. When Rosewood Park foul sewage is pumped out through their rising main overnight to the Barnhorn Road sewer at a time coincident with prolonged heavy rainfall, existing houses and gardens on Barnhorn Road already experience flooding with foul sewage. This is caused by sewage backing up to create a sufficient hydraulic gradient to artificially accelerate the flow in the sewer. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX23 can not proceed to occupation.
For these reasons I object to BX23.

I have the following comments on site BX24:
There is no foul sewer capacity in Sandhurst Lane. The sewage from this area will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road, but the existing 225mm sewer in Barnhorn Road has no spare capacity. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX24 can not proceed to occupation;
The BX24 area is more than 1000 metres from a bus stop and more than 1mile from the local centre of Little Common. Access and would be highly dependent on car use. It does not comply with Rother’s policies on sustainable transport.

My comment on development area BX27:
· There is no sewer in Sandhurst Lane or in Coneyburrow Lane;
· The foul water from this development will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewers in Barnhorn Road have no adequate spare capacity. Flooding of existing properties on Barnhorn Road, when pumping through rising mains coincides with prolonged heavy rainfall and foul sewage backs up to create the necessary hydraulic gradient, has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX27 can not proceed to occupation;
· The northern three quarters of this site is pleasant open countryside, In particular the northwestern edge of the area should remain open to ensure that any development remains out of sight from views from the East Stream and the Picknill Stream in the Pevensey Levels;
· The northern strip of this site is in the drainage basin of the Picknill stream, which is a tributary of the East stream in the Pevensey levels, development here may exacerbate pollution in the Pevensey Levels waterways;
· Access to this development area is proposed from Barnhorn Road and would conflict with Coneyburrow Lane and area BX28;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common. More than half the housing will be well over 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on car use;
· 540 houses on this site would produce substantial additional traffic on Barnhorn Road and would add to existing congestion at the Barnhorn approach at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would directly affect all traffic on the A259 which is an integral part of the national strategic road network (SRN). The extended traffic delay would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the SRN.

My comment on development area BX28 is:
· There is no foul sewer capacity in Coneyburrow Lane;
· Foul sewage from the additional houses in this development area will also have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewer in Barnhorn Road is of very limited capacity and flooding of existing properties further up Barnhorn Road has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX28 can not proceed to occupation;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common and from Bexhill. More than half the residents will be more than 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on unsustainable car travel;
· The additional traffic on Barnhorn Road would exceed the capacity at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in routine extensive queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would be inconsistent with the regional economic objectives and the operation of the SRN.

I enclose my specific comments and objections to certain development sites in West Bexhill.
Area BX23 includes a tongue of land south of Kites Nest Wood that is part of the Rosewood Park estate and may be the subject of litigation. This tongue of land contains the two SuDS ponds and associated pipework from the eastern section of the Rosewood Park estate. Hese SuDS ponds cannot be double counted for BX23 development as they are sized for Rosewood Park and are to the south of the Picknill stream.
The proposed new access road would require land raising to pass over existing pipework connecting the Rosewood Park SuDS to the outfall to the Picknill stream and to meet adoption standards.
BX23 is further than the normal acceptable distance and walking time from all local facilities including bus stops which is not sustainable. Residents will be highly dependent on car transport particularly with the British weather through most seasons that does not encourage pedal cycle use.
Access to BX23 is entirely dependent on Brooklands Road and the very limited effective capacity of the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road junction. The traffic from BX23 that does negotiate the traffic signals at the Brookands / Barnhorn junction (the majority of which will turn towards Bexhill) will further overload the Barnhorn Road approach to Little Common roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. These traffic delays on A259 would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the Strategic Road Network, of which A259 is an integral part.
Foul sewage from site BX23 will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but there is also no spare capacity in the existing Barnhorn Road 225mm foul sewer, as admitted by Southern Water. When Rosewood Park foul sewage is pumped out through their rising main overnight to the Barnhorn Road sewer at a time coincident with prolonged heavy rainfall, existing houses and gardens on Barnhorn Road already experience flooding with foul sewage. This is caused by sewage backing up to create a sufficient hydraulic gradient to artificially accelerate the flow in the sewer. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX23 can not proceed to occupation.
For these reasons I object to BX23.

I have the following comments on site BX24:
There is no foul sewer capacity in Sandhurst Lane. The sewage from this area will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road, but the existing 225mm sewer in Barnhorn Road has no spare capacity. Until several lengths of sewerage in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX24 can not proceed to occupation;
The BX24 area is more than 1000 metres from a bus stop and more than 1mile from the local centre of Little Common. Access and would be highly dependent on car use. It does not comply with Rother’s policies on sustainable transport.

My comment on development area BX27:
· There is no sewer in Sandhurst Lane or in Coneyburrow Lane;
· The foul water from this development will have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewers in Barnhorn Road have no adequate spare capacity. Flooding of existing properties on Barnhorn Road, when pumping through rising mains coincides with prolonged heavy rainfall and foul sewage backs up to create the necessary hydraulic gradient, has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX27 can not proceed to occupation;
· The northern three quarters of this site is pleasant open countryside, In particular the northwestern edge of the area should remain open to ensure that any development remains out of sight from views from the East Stream and the Picknill Stream in the Pevensey Levels;
· The northern strip of this site is in the drainage basin of the Picknill stream, which is a tributary of the East stream in the Pevensey levels, development here may exacerbate pollution in the Pevensey Levels waterways;
· Access to this development area is proposed from Barnhorn Road and would conflict with Coneyburrow Lane and area BX28;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common. More than half the housing will be well over 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on car use;
· 540 houses on this site would produce substantial additional traffic on Barnhorn Road and would add to existing congestion at the Barnhorn approach at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in extensive routine queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would directly affect all traffic on the A259 which is an integral part of the national strategic road network (SRN). The extended traffic delay would be inconsistent with the economy of the wider region and the operation of the SRN.

My comment on development area BX28 is:
· There is no foul sewer capacity in Coneyburrow Lane;
· Foul sewage from the additional houses in this development area will also have to be pumped to Barnhorn Road but the existing sewer in Barnhorn Road is of very limited capacity and flooding of existing properties further up Barnhorn Road has recently occurred several times. Until sewerage in Barnhorn Road, Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and possibly Maple Walk in West Bexhill are substantially reinforced by major reconstruction the development of BX28 can not proceed to occupation;
· The area is remote from the facilities of Little Common and from Bexhill. More than half the residents will be more than 500 metres from the nearest bus stop. Residents will be highly dependent on unsustainable car travel;
· The additional traffic on Barnhorn Road would exceed the capacity at the Little Common Roundabout resulting in routine extensive queues and prolonged delays. Delays and queueing would also occur at the Brooklands Road/ Barnhorn Road signalised junction. These traffic delays would be inconsistent with the regional economic objectives and the operation of the SRN.

Planning Application BX14 & BX15 'Protected' Field I strongly urge you to reject the addition of 40 more houses, (to the already 210 given permission,) on a protected field . I cannot believe it is ever being considered . Whatever happened to developing brownfield sites first? The thousands of properties that are being built in Bexhill, a small, compact town, is just not sustainable. We are not Eastbourne or Brighton. There is never any infrastructure built to accommodate the number of additional people in an area. Our roads are an utter disgrace, being so poorly maintained and with the addition of hundreds more vehicles, will only exacerbate the problem. We are custodians of this land for future generations. The government and developers, quite simply, do not care about concreting over and destroying the countryside, with no thought to wildlife and scant regard to it's survival. Our population is reaching 70 million, on a small island and this is not the way to solve the problem. I would like to end on this thought , last year it was a very dry summer, with a hose pipes ban. How will this work, with fresh water and sewage disposal being in ever increasing demand? I hope my comments will be listened to and the planning application dismissed.

Below are my comments on the sites which are nearest to where I live. I am fully aware there is a housing shortage but the scale of these proposed sites far exceeds any reasonable number of new houses being considered within the area.

Below are my main concerns:

• All the sites would lead to increased traffic on the A259 Barnhorn Road. It is already very busy, traffic incidents and accidents occur with increasing regularity mean further congestion is caused. New access points in several of the proposed sites would be onto a part of the road where a driver's vision of oncoming traffic would be severely limited- Sandhurst Lane and Coneyburrow Lane. There is no access already in place to some of the sites, and no immediate point where it could be put.
• Having lived in Barnhorn Road for more than 20 years I have personal experience that the 9"main sewer which serves the road and surrounding areas is already unfit for purpose. I have had to call out Sothern Water on many occasions to remove raw sewage from my front garden including the footpath access to my front door. Such incidents are happening now with increased regularity.
• The most recent incident was in January 2026. It took Southern Water 4 days to return to my property to clean up after I had had the contents of the sewer discharging for almost 20 hours immediately outside my front door. Heavy equipment had to be called from Worthing at 1am to enable the workforce to clear the blockage. If the sewer is unable to cope now, especially after heavy rain, a situation we know is increasing with climate change how on earth will it cope with increased use by new housing?

Further comments on specific sites

Sites:
BX20 Access would increase traffic on A259
BX21 Access would increase traffic on A259 and visibility is limited
BX22 Adjacent to Pevensey Levels SSSI, SAC and Ramsar designated wetlands. The proposed amount of housing-400+ and commercial space would severely compromise the ecological integrity of this special area. A Sustainable Drainage System would be required. This is already proving difficult to fulfil for site BX20
There is no obvious point of access to this site.
BX23 Access would be through Rosewood Park onto the A259. Increased traffic onto an already congested road
BX24 As above
BX25 Medical Centre +86 parking spaces. Much needed yet leading to increased traffic on Barnhorn Road.
BX26 Increased traffic onto Barnhorn Road
BX27 Increased traffic directly onto Barnhorn Road
BX28 Close proximity to Pevensey Levels -see BX22- and increased traffic onto Barnhorn Road

Apart from the above concerns there is the problem of air pollution caused by more traffic affecting those already ready living on Barnhorn Road. There is a shortage of both primary and senior school places local to this area.

In short, these plans are gravely damaging to an already overloaded local infrastructure in many ways. Much more consideration should be given to existing residents who daily have to live with the problems outlined above. Britain is one of the most severely nature depleted countries in the world. Building on and on, out from existing towns is not the answer.

Yours sincerely
Frances Howard-Brown

The plans to build homes in the surrounding area are way too high. I could object to all of the proposals but realise there has to be some new housing but

I object especially to the following:

BX21
BX22
BX23
BX27

We know that Sussex Water can barely cope with water/sewerage in the Barnhall Road area now. Do they have plans to manage all these new housing areas - the answer is No. There will be water shortages, flooding and problems with sewerage. Housebuilders cannot be trusted to get infrastructure in place before work is started and The Council do not have the manpower to check these things ???

Congestion on the Barnhall Road is getting worse and with all these new houses it will certainly not improve.The infrastructure cannot be changed the road is narrow and the openings increasing on this road due to new housing will cause more slow moving traffic and all the pollution that will follow.

Dear Sir/Madam, I would like my objections noted on the proposed development sites.
BX20,BX21,BX,22,BX23,BX24,BX25,BX26,BX27 and BX28.

I live in Prowting Mead off Spinewood Drive.

My reasons for objecting are:

Barnhorn Road is already heavily congested and delays are common. Locally to me at Meads Road vehicles sometimes park on both sides of the road which causes delays and access into Cooden Sea Road you have to pull out well into the road to see if there is any on coming traffic. Any additional traffic will exacerbate the problem. Bus services on the A259 are regularly affected by traffic/roadworks.

Pollution being another issue.

It's difficult to get a G.P. appointment these days and an increase number of residents will only potentially cause delays for all concerned and put extra pressure on the G.P practice.

I have read that extra dwellings could also impact the ecological integrity of the Pevensey levels.

I understand the need for additional housing but I don't think this is the right area to develop.