General comments on proposed sites BX20 - BX28.

All sites Will have a severe impact on the already impacted A259 Barnhorn Road, also have a negative impact on the lives of the local community.

The Southern Water has reported that the 9" sewage pipe under Barnhorn road can not cope with the current Quantity of sewage that pours through the pipe at this time.

No schools/shops/bus routes/road surfaces/road repairs to badly neglected roads, getting worse as the years progress, have even been planned.

The blocking of the A259 prevents ambulances getting through to the hospitals urgently required for emergency treatments. Also causing the blockage of the urgent fire/rescue emergencies.

BX 22 - Adjacent to the Pevensey levels ( SAC - Special area of Conservation ). Would be a disaster should an estate be built,

I am horrified at the "Happy go lucky " and no consideration whatsoever, attitude felt for the damage in all aspects that the BX20 -BX28 sites will cause to community, and environment as a whole.

Hopefully someone will come to their senses and plan with more care and attention to environment and community
development.

Comments on the Following prospective sites: BX20, BX21, BX22, BX23, BX24, BX26 BX27 & BX28

Our concerns are the same for all these sites with a common link to Barnhorn Road where we live.

Our main concerns relate to the infrastructure of the whole Little Common area with
a proposed increase of 1855 dwellings linking on to Barnhorn Road (A259).
This road is a main trunk road linking Bexhill to the west.
We have lived on Barnhorn Road for over thirty years and over the last few years
there has been a considerable increase in traffic and most days there is congestion
in both directions.


The following are our detailed objections to the plan:-

a) The congestion is already increasing and with all these new homes it will effect all residents and businesses needing to travel towards Eastbourne. The traffic flow we understand has already exceeded earlier predictions. We know that the road is dangerous and that large vehicles travel very close to the pavement leaving pedestrians vulnerable. We have major concerns about how all these dwelling will gain access to Barnhorn Road in such a short length of road. We already know how difficult this will be over access plans from the Spindlewood development opposite our house which is on a narrow part of the road.

b) We understand that these houses will be connected to the main 9 inch sewer pipe along Barnhorn Road which Southern Water already have admitted is not able to cope when we have excessive rainfall. This leaves us concerned about the houses on our road in the future from sewage spills.

c) Very recently South East Water have said that they will not be able to cope with the Tunbridge Wells planned increase of houses. We know that our fresh water comes from one tank at Ninfield. No doubt in Bexhill this will be the case here.

d) Lack of school places already cause a problem and we have heard that some
locaal children have not been able to go to Bexhill schools.

e) There is already a lack of GP services and the increase of probably about 4000 new residents just in Little Common will require a major increase in services.

f) We are also concerned about where the employment will come from for new
families. There doesn’t seem to be any proposals about how the town will grow to meet these demands.

Planning consultation: Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations and Interim Sustainability Appraisal and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Thank you for your consultations on the above dated 26th January and 11th February 2026, which were received by Natural England on the same days.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

We note that we previously provided comments on your Draft Rother Local consultation (our reference 359662) where we focused on the use of Natural England's 'Green Infrastructure Framework - Principles and Standards for England' (GIF) and briefly touched on other matters previously discussed with your authority. These comments remain valid (I have attached a copy for convenience) and the comments below, in relation to your latest consultations, will have a similar focus. The absence of comments on other matters within the Plan should not be taken as Natural England having no comments to make but that we have prioritised our advice. In particular, we have not commented on SA or HRA concerns (other than in relation to the Dungeness Complex, below), or any protected landscape concerns nor reviewed the allocations.

Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Key sustainability issues

Plan- Making for Biodiversity in the Climate Emergency

Given the severity of the decline in biodiversity and the climate change emergency, local plans have a key role to play in planning for resilience, forecasting, and making space for nature to adapt to a changing climate. Plans should seize the opportunity to help to reverse this decline through ambitious and integrated plan-making which demonstrably avoids and minimises impacts and seeks all opportunities to help reverse the biodiversity decline.

Green Infrastructure

Plans must adopt a strategic approach through multifunctional green infrastructure provision and nature recovery networks. To this end, we welcome the incorporation of green and blue infrastructure provision within several of your site policies. In particular, we welcome the embedding of Natural England's GIF within Policy BX1 – Bexhill Urban Area. However, we recommend the strengthening of the wording, by clarifying the meaning of ‘Where appropriate…’ in the context of this policy and by requiring the use of the Urban Greening Factor (and incorporation of ‘…measures to support…and biodiversity enhancements’). To this end, we suggest the use of ‘must’ rather than ‘should’, in paragraph four of the policy text. We recognise the existing urban nature of this policy’s geographical area but this increases the likely need to provide green infrastructure within new developments (NPPF 20 d), 96 c) and 125 a).).

We also welcome the requirement within Site Policy BX8, that development ‘on this site must:…iv. Provide a Green Infrastructure framework that retains and enhances habitats, alongside sustainable drainage (SuDS) measures;…’

Additional Comments:
Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS)

Spatial Strategic Objective (Figure 1) – We welcome the inclusion of an objective to ‘2. Maximise opportunities for nature conservation, recovery…’ However, although some of your previously proposed policies include the requirement to meet the objectives of the LNRS (non-strategic policy ENV5: Habitats and Species and strategic policies GTC7: Local Nature Recovery Areas, GTC8: Biodiversity Net Gain), there is currently no reference to the emerging LNRS. This section of the Spatial Strategic Objective would be a suitable place to support those policies and the NPPF (192 a)) by the addition a similar requirement, in relation to complying with the LNRS.

Designated Sites

Figure 11: Rother Development Strategy – Key Diagram – a pictorial representation of the development strategy

For completeness, this figure should include the Beachy Head East (Royal Sovereign Shoals) Marine Conservation Zone. Although the intended environmental interest coverage is not specified, it should be noted that Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserves are also missing, so if these have been deliberately omitted, perhaps the addition of some text explaining the choice of environmental sites should be included by way of clarification.

Habitats Regulations Assessment Background Paper – Draft (Regulation 18) Version – January 2026

Further to our previous advice in relation to addressing recreational pressure on the Dungeness Complex, we would take this opportunity to repeat advice given on 19th January 2026, regarding the need to update the visitor surveys and to devise an appropriate mitigation strategy:
Natural England are concerned about delays in the production of a suitable mitigation plan; especially in view of the age of the original visitor surveys. The detailed mitigation within the SARMS would need an updated evidence base. However, if such surveys indicate that recreational use is predominantly from visitors from outside of the local authority area, it may be that mitigation would more appropriately be addressed through a ‘Coastal Code of Conduct’ type approach, rather than via developer contributions. The details of such an approach would need to be discussed with our protected sites colleagues.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan
We welcome the recognition of green infrastructure as a type of infrastructure (2.23) and for your authority’s commitment to “Integrate community centres into wider green infrastructure…” (4.22 c.). We also welcome your authority’s aim, as set out in the Council’s strategic objectives and in the Rother Climate Strategy 2030, to place strong emphasis on enhancing the quality, accessibility, and multifunctionality of the green infrastructure network. (7.12).


Please see attached PDF version of these comments as well as Natural England’s comments in response to the previous 2024 Regulation 18 consultation on the draft Local Plan.

Draft Local Plan 2025-2042 – BX27

I object to the inclusion of site BX27 in the Draft Local Plan 2024-2042 for the following reasons:

1. Barnhorn Road (A259) is currently struggling to cope with an increasingly heavy volume of traffic and is frequently badly congested with long queues stretching back west to the Custom Cafe and beyond. Further development of 540 dwellings with a primary school etc. on BX27, would require access to the A259 at a critical point, immediately next to BX28. This access needed to a major trunk road by residents from over 900 dwellings on two adjacent sites would compromise safety, impede traffic flow even more and cause appalling congestion. There would also be increased air pollution to the detriment of people living along Barnhorn Road.

2. South East Water has recently warned that it will be able to provide water for only a "fraction" of the new homes planned in the south east. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that fresh water may well not be available for this development. Of equal concern is the existing sewage pipe running under the A259, which has a diameter of only 9ins according to Southern Water. Its employees have admitted that this sewage pipe is already at full capacity and unable to cope during storm conditions. There is photographic evidence of this. Accordingly, no further development should be undertaken until this situation has been resolved. However, to rectify this particular problem would mean installing a larger diameter pipe and the disruption this would cause by closing off part of this major trunk road to carry out the work would be inestimable since there is no viable alternative route.

3. If development in west Bexhill proceeds as shown in the DLP, there could be up to 5,000 more people requiring the services of the local GP practice and schools. It is evident that these requirements cannot be met without substantial improvements in services and infrastructure put in place before building begins.

4. Having consulted the various plans for development in Rother, it seems unrealistic that so many dwellings should be proposed for Bexhill where already overloaded infrastructure and high density housing would be problems. In outlying areas and villages there is more open land, much of which is outside the AONB, and use of this would enable RDC to plan realistic housing developments with adequate infrastructure and safe access routes.

5. There seem to be no significant employment opportunities planned. It is only prudent for a local authority to consider that in providing housing opportunities for thousands of new people moving to west Bexhill, there need also to be a range of opportunities for these people to work and earn a living to benefit and not be a demand on the local economy.

In conclusion I respectfully submit that BX27 is highly unsuitable as a development site and should be deleted from the DLP.

Draft Local Plan 2025-2042 – BX22

I object to the inclusion of site BX22 in the Draft Local Plan 2024-2042 for the following reasons:

1. Barnhorn Road (A259) is currently struggling to cope with an increasingly heavy volume of traffic and is frequently extremely congested with long queues stretching back west to the Custom Cafe and beyond. BX22 - a further development of 400 dwellings and commercial space would require access to the A259 near a critical bend on the A259, immediately adjacent to BX20 and BX21. This combined access to the trunk road from two sites would compromise safety, impede traffic flow and have a negative effect on the lives of local residents and its users.

2. South East Water has recently warned that it will be able to provide water for only a "fraction" of the new homes planned in the south east. Furthermore, Southern Water has admitted that the sewage pipe running under the A259 has a diameter of only 9ins and this cannot cope with current capacity during storm conditions. There is photographic evidence of this. No further development should be undertaken until this situation has been resolved with a larger diameter pipe to cope with the increasing number of dwellings. However, to install this would cause enormous disruption to Barnhorn Road as there is no viable alternative route.

3. There are serious implications as to potential damage to the Pevensey Levels, which are a protected RAMSAR site, SAC and SSSI. Due to the topography of BX22 and its position immediately above the Pevensey Levels, it is highly likely that drainage and polluting run off from such a large development on this site would result in irretrievable damage to the ecological integrity of the Pevensey Levels let alone increase the risk of flooding.

4. If development in west Bexhill proceeds as shown in the DLP, there could be up to 5,000 more people requiring the services of the local GP practice and schools. It is evident that these requirements cannot be met without substantial improvements in services and infrastructure put in place before further building commences.

5. Having consulted the various plans for development in Rother, it seems unrealistic that so many dwellings should be proposed for Bexhill, where already overloaded infrastructure and high density would inevitably be problems. In outlying areas and villages there is more land, much of which is outside the AONB, and use of this this would enable RDC to plan realistic housing developments with adequate infrastructure and safe access routes.

6. There seem to be no major employment opportunities planned. It is only prudent for a local authority to consider that in providing housing opportunities for thousands of new people moving to west Bexhill, there need also to be opportunities for these people to work and earn a living to the benefit of the local economy and not to its detriment.

In conclusion I submit that BX22 is highly unsuitable as a development site and should be deleted from the DLP.

I object to the developments on Sites: BX20, BX21, BX22, BX23, BX24, BX26, BX27,
Severe impact on already heavily congested A259. Air polluting traffic, unsafe cycle lane, unreliable bus service will mean more residents having to rely on their cars. Southern water already unable to cope with current sewage from existing dwellings. BX22 is adjacent to Pevensey levels SAC. The high density estate with its polluting run-off would compromise the ecological integrity of this special area. Schools are struggling already and will not cope. A proper infrastructure is needed before any of these plans can go ahead.

I object to Sidley car park (BX 50) being used for accommodation.
It is essential for the shops to survive. It is used not only for food shopping but for those using the hairdressers, dry cleaners etc., by parents taking children to school, those attending the doctors surgery, including patients from Albert Road surgery. Also those using the church.
Forcing parking into residential streets surrounding this area will cause considerable congestion. Lidl car park has a time limit and is there for use of the shop.
Also building more apartments in that area will have a detrimental effect on the flats which already surround the car park due to light and outlook. Bringing more accommodation into this area when it is already near impossible to get a doctor‘s appointment or a school place is not sustainable. The survival of Sidley as a community depends on this car park.

The proposed developments in the draft local plan raise a number of serious concerns that warrant reconsideration.

Barnhorn Road (A259) is already heavily congested and operating beyond its intended capacity. Any further increase in traffic from additional housing will inevitably worsen conditions, leading to longer delays, increased congestion, and a clear decline in quality of life for local residents as well as all road users.

There are also significant infrastructure limitations. Southern Water has confirmed that the existing 9-inch sewer beneath Barnhorn Road cannot cope with current demand during storm conditions. Accommodating additional development would require a full replacement with a larger pipe - an undertaking that would necessitate major excavation and prolonged road closures.

Fundamentally, for any development of this scale to be considered viable, there must be meaningful and timely upgrades to supporting infrastructure - most critically the road network. These upgrades must be present before development is approved, not after. It is your responsibility to ensure that development is genuinely sustainable, with infrastructure delivered in step with growth, not lagging behind it. Without this, the proposals cannot be supported.

Please ensure that you act in accordance with your responsibilities and demand higher standards of infrastructure before developments are approved.

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

BX22
This is a totally inappropriate site to be developed for the following reasons
1. There is no obvious access point to the site as stated. Consequently, it cannot be developed.
2. This site is very close to the Pevensey Levels (a RAMSAR protected site, an SSSI and a SAC) and would thus need, swales, a three phase SuDS and attenuation pond(s) - exactly as per BX20 (Spindlewood) and Clavering Park. Due to the topography of the field whereby at times of very high water tables (winter), water will be forced up the side of the field towards this proposed development. This will be very detrimental to any home owners of this site, particularly those on the southern most flank. Indeed, building a large scale development here may even affect the water levels of the Pevensey Levels itself.
For these reasons, this site should be removed from the development plan.

BX27/28
These 2 sites combined as well as existing dwellings at Northeye will entail over 1000 dwellings with associated vehicles. The 2 sites are very close together as far as their likely access onto the A259 (Conneyburrow Lane and Beeches Farm access) with consequential implications on traffic management onto the A259.
Either a complex traffic light system or very large roundabout is almost certain to be needed with associated traffic flow and congestion issues along the A259. This will be disastrous for a heavily used strategic highway that is already over capacity and experiences major congestion throughout the day, but especially at peak times.
Given that BX28 is sponsored by the government and thus almost certain to proceed, BX27 should be removed from the draft plan.

My mother and I, Mrs Celia Hughes-Cooper and Miss Sally Hughes-Cooper, having perused the above today are strongly opposed to all the sites mentioned in it and we completely support all viable given objections to the said Plan. As a family, we have first hand experience, over a significant number of years (the family home being in Barnhorn Road) of the increasing heavy volume of traffic. The road in our opinion was never constructed in the beginning to withstand such an unceasing amount of it. The incremental side of it has been very discerning over 55 years and we are loath for this pattern to continue, which it sadly and inevitably will, without in addition the suggested proprosals.

BX28
given that much of the land proposed for development is brownfield (ex Northeye prison), I support this site.
However, there are concerns about its proximity to the Pevensey Levels and the fact that a major artery running into the Pevensey Levels (East Canal) runs along the northern flank of the site. Consequently, the site must have swales, a SuDS and a filtering attenuation pond to ensure no polluted water can enter the East Canal or any its tributaries.
There may also be a problem with the sewage pipe from this site and running up Conneyburrow Lane and then along Barnhorn Road. The current 9" pipe is already at over capacity so adding an additional 380 dwellings and their output to this pipe is not appropriate and an alternative should be provided by Southern Water before the site is occupied.

Objection to Sidley Car Park (DASA Allocation) – Rother Local Plan 2025–2042
I wish to object to the proposed allocation of the Sidley car park (DASA) for development in the Rother Local Plan.
This car park is a vital asset for the local community. It supports nearby shops, services, and community facilities, helping to sustain the local high street. Its loss would have a direct negative impact on local businesses, already under pressure, and reduce accessibility for residents, particularly older people and those with limited mobility.
Sidley already faces challenges around parking and congestion. Removing this facility without a clearly viable and equivalent replacement would worsen these issues and place additional strain on surrounding residential streets.
The proposal also fails to recognise the importance of maintaining community infrastructure in areas like Sidley, where local amenities rely heavily on accessible parking.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Council to reconsider this allocation and retain the car park for community use.

BX15
Your text about this site is incorrect as this green space IS available to the public and is used daily by dog walkers. Please give serious consideration to this area being incorporated into Broad Oak Park rather than additional housing. Green spaces offer vital importance and a considerable benefit to all. They are being developed at an alarming rate and once lost will never be regained.

Please see our responses to questions 9 and 10. From a review of the HELAA assessments and given the constraints identified by the Council across the District, we consider that Bexhill and the surrounding area may be well placed to accommodate more development and help meet local needs/make up the shortfall in housing supply. We welcome the fact that site assessments are ongoing and urge the Council to reconsider some HELAA sites in order to meet as much of the District’s needs in the forthcoming planning period. Failure to do so could potentially create a worse undersupply problem for the next plan period and/or a falling five-year housing supply in the forthcoming period, leading to housing policies being weakened and a larger number of appeals.

I object to the proposal to build on the car park in Sidley.planning proposal BX 50.
This site is integral to the high street, it ensures people have somewhere to park for the shops and post office, the local church, and children's centre, and primary school, also the GP surgery which has very limited parking. The loss of this local amenity, with recycling bins and public toilets is very important. There are many elderly residents and young families, that are unable to walk very far the car park ensured they have access to the shops and amenities.

I feel I must protest about the folly of selling car parks in and around town for building houses = more cars. Businesses are suffering because of lack of parking space, You have to be careful where you park as its all so disjointed by lots of rules. We will lose Sainsbury it that car park goes. Events in town are not being attended. The town is dying. There seems to be a lot of empty flats and houses around that could be used or purchased with ground explore that possibility. There are traffic jams, because the lights are not working (incorrectly timed). Strongly opposed, yours, Mrs P. Stanley

We wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposed sites BX20 , BX21, BX22, BX23, BX24, BX25, BX26, BX27, BX28 for the following reasons:

Unless local infrastructure is significantly improved and updated before the building works even begin, the proposed developments would cause serious difficulties not only for current residents but also for new residents and this would certainly be detrimental to Bexhill as a whole.

There appears to be a significant absence of foresight and concrete measures regarding the creation and implementation of substantial new employment opportunities to support the financial needs of approximately 30,000 incoming residents expected to occupy the proposed new dwellings over the next sixteen years. Without a clear strategy to meet these demands, the plan risks leaving a considerable portion of the future population without adequate access to meaningful work.

In particular:


TheThe fact that all proposed sites (BX20-BX28) will be connecting to the main 9” sewer pipe running along Barnhorn Road and which Southern Water have already admitted is incapable of coping with existing capacity during storm conditions and as many residents suffered the consequences of this Winter. There is evidence of this from Southern Water. Based on previous experience, there is doubt that South East Water and Southern Water would have sufficient fresh water and sewage capacity to cope with all these new residents. Southern Water has admitted that the narrow 9” sewer pipe under Barnhorn Road cannot cope with the current quantity of sewage from the buildings on both sides of the road in storm conditions. It therefore cannot deal with more sewage unless the 9” pipe is replaced with a larger one, which would mean completely closing and digging up the road. Fresh water supply for West Bexhill is currently supplied from one tank at Ninfield.

SevThe severe impact upon Barnhorn Road affecting anyone using this extremely busy road. Major additional hold-ups will adversely affect Rother business productivity, cause congestion, delays and compromise safety on what is already recognised as a dangerous trunk road All, and indeed any, of the above will have a severe impact on the traffic on the heavily congested A259 Barnhorn Road, which is already operating above capacity. An increase in the number of vehicles needing to access this trunk road will have a negative impact on the lives of local people and on all its users. The air-polluting traffic, the incomplete and unsafe cycle-lane and the unreliable bus service mean that most residents will be reliant on car usage for their travel needs.

1. This is already of concern because the negative effects of these developments will be experienced by all users of this trunk road, with more frequent hold-ups and longer queues of air-polluting vehicles at the Barnhorn Green/Rosewood Park traffic lights. Any additional housing development would be disastrous for road-users and Little Common as a whole.


3.  The lack of local school places across all cohorts (nursery, primary and secondary). Little Common Primary and Bexhill Academy are already at or near full capacity. The major problem with Little Common Primary school is that there are insufficient nursery school places in and around Little Common feeding into the year 5. School places in most years are in very short supply. Little Common Primary School and Bexhill Academy are almost at capacity. Building an additional one-form entry school is not a viable option, economically or socially.

   Lack of GPs (there could be 4000-5000 new residents for Little Common medical centre to deal with) There could be serious implications on the health & well being of residents. It is already near impossible to see a GP.

   The lack of any proposals in the plan as to how Bexhill as a whole may grow and expand with the appropriate quantity of job opportunities needed. What work will new residents be able to acquire locally given that if the DLP succeeds in providing RDC with the 912

new dwellings required every year by the government until 2042, a further 30,000 people could be living in and around Bexhill?


Is it fair or reasonable that Bexhill (especially west and north) should be bearing the brunt of the total number of new dwellings (at least 50%) in Rother instead of spreading them more widely in rural areas where there is less congestion and far more land available?


BX22 is adjacent to the Pevensey Levels SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and the Ramsar designated wetlands. It is essential that the ecological integrity of this area is preserved. Any drainage water flowing onto it requires a Sustainable Drainage System, to exclude any water-borne pollutants, as well as the creation of an attenuation pond. (These are non flowing water and pose problems for the increasing mosquito influx from abroad) These requirements are proving very difficult to fulfil for the smaller development BX20. Building any more houses, particularly a high-density estate with its polluting run-off, would severely compromise the ecological integrity of this special area.



Residents in Rosewood Park purchased their properties on the understanding that there would be green open space within the development, there has been much consternation about the legality of Gladman/David Wilson Homes delaying the sign off of the estate and misleading/misselling properties. They now face the possibility of a major road running through the estate that was not designed for this. The roads in Rosewood Park are unadopted roads that residents are paying council tax for irrespective.


RDC's 'partners' with reference to infrastructure plans seem to be merely objectives rather than included as 'must haves' within the planning structure. Who are these 'partners' - have they agreed to the infrastructure improvements for Bexhill and will it be signed off and financed when the housing developments are passed?

We understand that these 'partners' have AI modelling programs available to show requirements for transport, water electricity etc - when are RDC going to be made aware of these models and when are local residents going to be made aware?

Please forward my comments on to the necessary people. I did register on the Rother website to make my representation but there is a 150 word limit. I felt the limit was too restrictive.



The new Rother plan



My opposition



I’m becoming increasingly concerned, frustrated and bewildered by the amount of new housing being either built or planned.

I moved to Bexhill into an existing bungalow. Bexhill was the perfect fit for me and I embraced the relaxed lifestyle offered by a quiet seaside town.



Since moving here, I have noticed so many house building projects starting up or being planned and although I do recognise that there is a requirement for new houses, Bexhill seems to be ‘the place to go to’ in order to provide new housing. This is having a detrimental affect on the area that I have chosen to live.



Below is a quick snapshot of what existing residents like me face now and into the future. A future that I didn’t sign up to.



Bellway are well underway in constructing 89 houses on land off of Turkey Road. The land on which those houses will stand wasn’t on the present local plan but ended up getting approved anyway. On land adjacent to the Bellway site is BX42 (this used to be BEX6) and Quantum Homes are at the pre- planning stage with up to 30 homes planned. Walk further along Turkey Road towards St Mary’s Lane and 6 flats are planned for BX43 (Cemetery Lodge). Directly opposite St Mary’s Lane is Ellelslie Lane. 3 houses have just been recently completed on land that was part of Highwoods Golf club car park. Travel further up Ellerslie Lane and you come across 26 houses recently completed at Moleynes Mead. Then travel a couple of hundred yards further along and you find yourself in Fryatts Way. 210 houses have been approved for this site and the field adjacent is also now subject to development too.

I was able to walk to all the developments, one after the other, in under 12 minutes.



I feel that although Rother needs to meet housing targets, it needs to look further afield. Bexhill can’t provide all of Rothers housing needs. Local residents have a need and a right to live in the place that they chose and not have houses imposed on them by over development.

There are 38 housing sites identified in Bexhill (central, urban, west and north). That’s more than triple that of Battle. Most other places in Rother don’t even make double figures!!



I feel that Bexhill, with its close proximity to the sea, is the first choice of both the council and developers. This should not be the case.



NOTE

Since composing this communication, it has come to my attention that BX39 is now also on the plan with up to 500 homes. This is sheer madness. Surely Bexhill residents deserve better. Bexhill will be unrecognisable and ruined forever.

I have lived in Bexhill for many years and clearly many things are bound to change over time. However, it is only change for the better that matters.



Bexhill is a small town and has always been known for its thriving, supportive and caring community. Sadly, this is now being eroded due to the outward ‘sprawl’ which is happening due to every spare piece of natural,space being developed for housing. In most cases the developments are in unsuitable areas, for example the 89 properties being built in Turkey Road, next to Ibstock brickworks. A decision made in complete and utter denial of the dangerous access road, the harmful dust and the infrastructure.



Our town already has very serious infrastructure issues, with doctors, school, dentists, water and sewage, parking, the condition of the highways and lack of community policing. I have witnessed a property being flooded due to inadequate drainage on the main road, resulting in expensive damage and homeowners' serious stress.



There are so many empty buildings and properties (many centrally e.g. empty banks) and it is my belief that the council must pursue these avenues, or at the very least insist owners are made to be proactive in selling them for the development of 2/3 bedroom flats.



I have bullet pointed below my concerns which I feel should be taken seriously and given much consideration when planning is being put before the council.



1. Environmental impact

Building houses uses land, materials, and energy. It can lead to:

Loss of green spaces and wildlife habitats
Increased carbon emissions from construction
Strain on natural resources like water and timber
2. Urban sprawl

If houses are built without careful planning, cities spread outward (“sprawl”), which can:

Increase traffic and commuting times
Make public transport less efficient
Reduce community cohesion
3. Infrastructure strain

More houses mean more demand for:

Roads, schools, hospitals
Water, electricity, and sewage systems
If infrastructure isn’t upgraded alongside housing, quality of life can drop.
4. Empty homes already exist

In some places, there are already unused or underused properties. Building more without using existing stock can be inefficient.

5. Cost and affordability issues

New builds don’t always solve housing crises because:

They can be expensive and not affordable for most people
Developers may prioritize profit over need
6. Social and planning concerns

Rapid or poorly planned development can:

Change the character of communities
Lead to overcrowding or poorly designed neighbourhoods


I will look forward to your reply and thoughts on this matter.

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing in relation to the proposed development of the Sidley car park site (Policy Reference BX50 – Land at Sidley Car Park, Ninfield Road, Bexhill).

I am contacting you as a local resident, business owner, and Chairman of the Heart of Sidley Association, as I have a number of concerns regarding both the construction phase and the long-term impact of this proposal on the local community.

Firstly, the temporary loss of the car park during the construction phase is a significant concern. This car park is heavily relied upon by local residents, businesses, and particularly parents dropping off and collecting children from the nearby primary school. If the site is out of use for an extended period, it is highly likely that parking and traffic will be displaced into surrounding residential roads such as Edmonton Road, Calgary Road, and Canada Way. These roads are not designed to accommodate increased traffic volume, and this could create congestion and, more importantly, safety risks for pedestrians and schoolchildren.

In addition, the construction process itself will inevitably involve lorries and heavy goods vehicles accessing the site. This raises further concerns about traffic management, road safety, and disruption within what is a busy and primarily residential area.

Looking beyond the construction phase, there are also important questions regarding the long-term provision of parking. While the proposal refers to the retention of public parking, it is unclear:

How many parking spaces will remain available for public use once the development is complete

Whether these spaces will remain free of charge

Both of these points are crucial. The current car park plays an important role in supporting local businesses and enabling people to access the village. Any significant reduction in availability, or introduction of charges, could have a negative impact on footfall and trade, at a time when encouraging people to shop locally is already a challenge.

I fully appreciate the need to deliver additional housing, particularly smaller dwellings, and understand the reasoning behind the proposal. However, it is vital that the wider impact on infrastructure, safety, and the local economy is carefully considered and properly mitigated.

As someone actively involved in the community, I would very much welcome the opportunity to be involved in any consultation process — whether public or otherwise — to help ensure that any development achieves the best possible outcome for residents, businesses, and visitors to Sidley.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I would appreciate any further information you can provide regarding this proposal and any upcoming consultation opportunities.

Yours sincerely,

Jay Carroll
Resident, Business Owner & Chairman – Heart of Sidley Association
Carrolls Ltd

Subject: Sidley Car Park – Community Concerns and Request for Consultation BX50 - submitting on behalf of my dad

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing in relation to the proposed changes to the car park in Sidley, specifically the suggestion that it may become a pay and display facility, or an area containing multiple dwellings.

I am contacting you as I have some concerns about the potential impact this change could have on both safety and the local economy.

Firstly, the car park is heavily used by parents for school drop-offs and pick-ups due to its proximity to the nearby primary school. The road directly outside the school is small and already under pressure, and there have been ongoing efforts to keep it as safe and pedestrian-friendly as possible during peak times. Introducing charges to the car park may discourage its use, leading to increased parking on surrounding residential roads or directly outside the school. This could create significant safety risks for children, as these areas are not designed to accommodate that level of traffic.

Secondly, I am concerned about the wider impact on the village. If not carefully considered, parking changes of this nature can have a detrimental effect on footfall and trade. We have seen similar situations in Bexhill town, where increased parking restrictions have contributed to a decline in visitors spending time in the area. Sidley already faces challenges in encouraging people to shop locally, and any additional barriers could have a lasting negative effect on our small business community.

I fully understand the need for councils to review and manage parking effectively; however, I believe it is crucial that any decisions are made with a full understanding of the local environment and its needs.

I was also under the impression that the land in question was owned by Sidley. Did the council purchase this at some point? If so, when did that purchase take place.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. I would appreciate any updates regarding this matter and would be happy to discuss further if helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Jimmy Carroll

I strongly object to the proposed developments BX 20-BX 28. If built the council will be ignoring the guidance of their Sustainability Report.
The development sites are on both sides of the Barnhorn Road, which is already heavily congested with traffic, and the air pollution is already of great concern. Also there have been several traffic accidents recently and three animals of protected species have been killed on the road.
The 9" sewage pipe under Barnhorn Road cannot cope with the current amount of sewage let alone the extra sewage from the development.
Building on BX20 and BX22 would cause pollution of the Pevensey Levels if any drainage flows into it from the new developments.
The proposed developments would interfere with biodiversity, harming animal & reptile habitats.
Without a great investment in infrastructure the development is not viable. To date there are not enough doctors, schools, & jobs for such an influx. The hospitals are already under pressure and the transport links need improvement.

BX19 - This public open space has been allocated to build 10 houses. This small green area provides health and wellbeing to the local residents as well as being a haven for wildlife. Once gone, it is irreplaceable. It’s unfortunate that, in this case, providing new homes would come at the expense of the very qualities that make the town such an appealing place to live

BX28 made up of two sites being the now derelict Northeye Prison and adjoining property on the Barnhorn Road gives a good opportunity for new housing with ample room to improve road access whilst meeting local housing needs and not being detrimental to the environment with adequate planning.

Northeye site being mainly brown field development .

BX28 made up of two sites being the old north prison which has been derelict for many years and an adjoining property on Barnhorn Road, is a good opportunity to supply housing needs to the area without being detrimental to the environment and developing an old RAF camp and prison into residential property to ease the housing shortage in the area.

BX28 represents land that has had the threat of an asylum location for a number of years on the old Northeye Prison. This land, and the property on Barnhorn Road, is ideally placed for residential property that will address the shortage of housing for the local community. Given the land has been a prison and then used for a variety of purposes, redevelopment for housing will ensure that the redevelopment will enhance the environment and clear up the old buildings.

BX15 - should not be included. 210 dwellings already agreed and vehicular access via Fryatts Way, Ellerslie Lane (which has no footpath) is inadequate. There are no nearby public transport links. I object to the increasing loss of green sites locally and the draft plan focus for growth is sustainable brownfield site locations.

BX13 - should not be included. A Strategic Spatial Objective of the plan is to create economic prosperity. Removing access to parking in the town for business owners, employees and customers does not meet this objective.