I oppose the site allocation BX19 on The Gorses car park Bexhill. When the public are pleading that basic infrastructure is put in place before further development -anywhere- continues, it is unjustifiable that the council would propose removing infrastructure [The Gorses Car Park] in order to build houses on.

In your supporting statement you say that ‘There is ample on-street parking in the local area available for users of the nearby railway station, and consequently, the loss of the public car park is considered acceptable,’

Looking at the site on a map may tell you that there’s ample on-street parking, but the day to day reality is that there isn’t. The car park is in constant use by commuters and beach goers and when the car park is full, the overflow of parking into the surrounding streets makes Cooden Sea Road dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers; where traffic has to be single file, often leading to dangerous overtaking of cyclists on a narrow road.
Building on the infrastructure of a well used car park, forcing that parking onto surrounding roads, and then introducing further traffic bought by 10 new dwellings using Cooden Sea Road is an ill-thought out proposal of the safety and much needed infrastructure of the local area.

Your other proposals in the Bexhill area quote the much needed infrastructure to encourage local transport use and cycling. This proposal directly contradicts these aims by actively building on the infrastructure [The Gorses Car Park] that already exists to encourage commuters to use Cooden Beach railway station, and for cyclists to safely use the surrounding roads, which are already heavily used for parking, making Cooden Sea Road and The Gorses particularly dangerous for cyclists to navigate.

During the summer months and school holidays in particular, Cooden Beach is swapped with visitors, and the car park is further used to bring relief to the swapped surrounding roads. Again, your proposition doesn’t consider the current realities of the parking needs and uses in this area, let alone the impact of 10 dwellings with an average of 2 cars (based on NTS 2024 gov figures) each using the surrounding roads for access.

I am pleased to see that the supporting comments for this proposal recognises the loss of the open public space within the site would be contrary to national planning policy and harmful to biodiversity. The green space adjoining the Gorses Car Park is well used by bird and bat populations. Britain is in a biodiversity crisis and is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. Each pocket and open public space that we have should be protected and looked after. I’m pleased that the proposal acknowledges that building on the site would be detrimental due to its close proximity to Pevensey Levels SSSI, Ramsar Site, SAC and Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

BX20: 146 dwellings off Spindlewood Drive
BX21: 20 dwellings adjacent to the caravan site
BX22: 400 dwellings + plus 3000 m² commercial space south of Barnhorn Road
BX23: 340 dwellings north of Rosewood Park
BX24: 68 dwellings east of Sandhurst Lane
BX25: Medical Centre with 86+ parking spaces and light industrial units with 50+ parking spaces
BX26: 25 dwellings south of Sandhurst Lane
BX27: 540 dwellings on Beeches Farm and land north of Barnhorn Road
BX28: 384 dwellings at Northeye
The objection is based on : No infra structure !!!! We don't need more congestion or exhaustion fumes on Barnhorn Road , 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.

BX15, should not be used for houses as it is part of Broad Oak Park which is for the community under various agreements and covenants. It is used daily by many locals to excersise both themselves and their dogs and to enjoy the nature that is abundant. We must not destroy wild place. In addition the proposed access through Fryatts Way is already unsuitable for the building of 210 houses which has just started, no more houses should be built to use this route.

BX28 comprises the old prison which is derelict and a house in Barnhorn Road plus field next door. The land is a good opportunity to use for housing without spoiling the area and help ease the housing shortage.

This is an area that has previously been identified as a gap necessary to prevent the coalescence of urban areas between Hastings and Rother and by building on this area it risks urban creep

It is also an ancient woodland which houses a large area of bluebells, as well as much wildlife such as owls, cuckoos, woodpeckers, newts and bats

I don’t believe that the current infrastructure will cope, the roads around this area are already incredibly busy, getting appointments with GP’s is already a challenge, waiting lists at the Conquest are long and classrooms are already full. We have also recently experienced issues with water supply in this area - as we know the pipework in use and maintained by Southern Water leaves a lot to be desired. Adding a whole host of new homes to this already fragile infrastructure without improvements to roads, doctors surgeries, schools, water supply and waste will exacerbate the existing issues.

My thoughts on your development plan are based on living in Bexhill, the lack of infrastructure, inability to fulfil fundamental requirements, reduction of community, damage to natural environment and residents living standards.

SITES: BX20 BX21 & BX22

Further Reasons for my Objection:

* Site BX21 is full of asbestos and disturbing it could be detrimental to the health not only of those working on the site but the residents of Little Common particularly those living close to the site. This has been reported to the Environmental Agency as well as the Environmental officers at Rother.

* Damage to the setting of listed buildings and medieval farm.

* We strongly object on the grounds that the Development of these sites would harm the oldest recorded historic site in Bexhill-on-sea/ Little Common.

* A positive strategy for the historic environment in Local Plans should ensure that site allocations AVOID harming the significance of both designated and non-designated heritage assets, including effects on their settings. Great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

In conclusion we strongly object to this planning application.

SITES: BX20, BX21 BX22, BX23, BX27 & BX28
*Little Common particularly Barnhorn Stretch is already suffering from lack of sewage infrastructure. It is already struggling to cope with the existing housing. Southern Water has confirmed that a narrow 9” sewer pipe under Barnhorn Road is all we currently have is is not coping with the current quantity of sewage from the building on both sides of Barnhorn Rd. I am aware of sewage seeping into gardens of properties West of Rosewood Development. The understanding is that since Rosewood development opened the sewage West gets bottled necked where Rosewood is connected to the mains sewage and therefore is backing up.
*Traffic Congestion is already a issue for this busy stretch of the A259 particularly during rush hours.
*Barnhorn Rd (A259) is a ‘Trunk Road’, therefor it defies reason that RDC believes that Barnhorn Rd (A259) or the heart of the village could absorb further traffic, pouring directly onto its busiest most congested areas. What will become of our village?

SITES: CX20, BX21, BX22, BX23; BX27 & BX28

*Light Pollution risk to the natural environment adversely affecting wildlife
*Noise pollution on the existing residence and natural environment adversely affecting wildlife
*Air pollution: The increase of of debris and decrease of air quality from construction methods, vehicles, petrol garden equipment next to the Ancient Woodland and Ramsar, SAC, SSSI site would inevitably have a adverse affect the wildlife and pond life that have gone mainly undisturbed for centuries.
*Lack of school places: Schools are near capacity as it is.
*Lack of doctor surgeries: struggle to get a doctors appointment currently
*Removes a lot of green spaces that are currently used and enjoyed by current residents
*Destroys land of outstanding beauty
*Urban Creep into surrounding areas will change our village into something of a town. Developing to this level of 1900+ new houses will destroy that.

BX20; BX21 & BX22
Reasons for my Objection:
Developing these sites have the real potential of irreparable damage to protected Pevensey level, Ramsar, SSSI, SAC & Ancient woodlands sites.This ‘Urban Creep’ will increase the volume of water run-off onto the protected site. Surface water run-off has potential to be a major source of water pollution. Pollutions reach wetland areas mainly through run-off whereby water flows over impervious surfaces picking up a number of pollutants generated by human activity, Such pollutants can include sediment from construction sites, toxic metals and petroleum wastes from roadways and industrial or commercial areas, nutrients and bacteria from residential areas and nutrients and pesticides from agriculture and gardening activities. In turn, this has the potential to significantly affect the hydrology, soil and flora and fauna of the Pevensey levels and ultimately affect the conservation objectives of the site.

Protect our SSSI & Ramsar sites, Vote No

I am objecting to the proposed development on a field in Broad Oak Park. The roads around the development are not adequate to cope with the additional traffic that will inevitably be generated by these new properties. Neither Ellerslie Lane or Broad Oak Lane are wide enough and there is no potential to widen these roads. I live at a particularly narrow section of Broad Oak Lane and we daily endure cars, vans and heavy lorries using my driveway as a passing point. There are already signs of subsidence to my frontage. The journey along Ellerslie Lane is arduous because of the current traffic flow- it cannot take any more. Furthermore, the field is much loved and used by many dog walkers and nature lovers. Many butterflies and wild flowers flourish there. Please don't continue with this ruinous project - once done, it cannot be undone.

I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the emerging proposals identifying potential sites for residential development within the local area, specifically with the land south of Barnhorn road ref BX22. While I understand that these are not yet detailed planning applications, it is important that concerns are clearly raised at this early stage, as site allocation decisions have long-lasting consequences for the community.

First and foremost, there are significant concerns regarding infrastructure capacity. Local roads are already under strain, with congestion at peak times and limited capacity for increased traffic. Any substantial housing development would inevitably intensify these pressures, leading to longer journey times, increased pollution, and reduced road safety. Similarly, public services such as GP surgeries, schools, and public transport are already operating at or near capacity. Without clear, enforceable commitments to expand infrastructure in advance of development, further housing would place an unsustainable burden on existing residents.

There is also a very specific sewage pipe capacity issue for the road, requiring extensive works otherwise the system would not cope.

It is concerning to note the phrase “commercial” development. But this would suggest that things like commercial traffic and deliveries via large vehicles would become a regular occurrence, when the area already struggles to cope with normal residential traffic. This would also have huge impacts on the character of the area with such a large commercial site being proposed.

In addition, the environmental impact of developing this space must be carefully considered. Such areas often support local biodiversity and contribute to the character of the area, not to mention the impact on the nearby SSSI, special area of conservation and the Ramsar designated wetlands. Building in this area would create huge impact on these areas and damage these special areas beyond repair. This would not only harm wildlife habitats but also reduce green space that is vital for recreation, wellbeing, and climate resilience. Development in these areas risks increasing flood risk, reducing air quality, and undermining wider environmental objectives.

There is also the issue of local character and identity. Many proposed sites may sit within or adjacent to established communities with distinct character. Large-scale or poorly planned development risks eroding this character and creating settlements that feel disconnected and lacking in cohesion. Any future proposals must respect the scale, design, and heritage of the surrounding area.

Furthermore, there is concern about the sustainability of these site allocations. Housing should be located in areas with appropriate access to employment, services, and public transport. Proposals that rely heavily on car use are not consistent with national and local policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable living.

Finally, meaningful community engagement is essential. Residents should be given genuine opportunities to shape development proposals, not simply respond to predetermined site allocations. Early-stage consultation must be transparent and take into account the cumulative impact of multiple potential developments.

In conclusion, I urge the Council to carefully reconsider the inclusion of this site for development. A plan-led, evidence-based approach that prioritises sustainable locations and protects the character of the area is essential.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. I trust they will be given due weight in your decision-making process

There doesn't need to be more houses down fryatts way on broad oak park. You've got houses going in in Turkey rd and still building by pebsham. Another 35 there won't help. Roads won't be able to sustain the increased traffic of 2 cars per house minimum, plus nowhere for wildlife to go except onto rds!

I object to the proposed allocation of land south of Barnhorn Road (Ref: BX22) for development due to serious concerns about infrastructure, environment, and community impact. Local roads are already congested, to the point where any small incident creates tail backs for miles and additional housing would worsen traffic, pollution, and safety issues. I can’t see a logical way of accessing this area of land in a way which would support such a high number of houses without causing higher traffic and pollution/accidents. Public services are operating at capacity.

Environmentally, the site is close to protected areas such as SSSI, Special Areas of Conservation, development risks irreversible harm to biodiversity, green space, and flood resilience. The destruction of countryside should be avoided when there are sites such as northeye which represent a good opportunity to have housing on a site currently not being used.

The proposals also threaten local character

This application/development should be refused as it represents unsustainable development on land historically gifted/purchased for the enjoyment of the local community, not for disposal or housing. The site lies outside the Bexhill settlement boundary and forms part of the open countryside, where development is typically resisted. The surrounding infrastructure is wholly inadequate, with narrow rural lanes, poor access, and no capacity to safely accommodate increased traffic, creating significant highway safety concerns. The proposal would result in the loss of valued informal open space, harm the rural character and visual amenity of the area, and negatively impact local biodiversity. It also sets an undesirable precedent for further encroachment into the countryside. The development conflicts with both local planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework and fails to demonstrate any overriding need for this location

I oppose further development in Bexhill. First, I believe there has been insufficient evaluation of the impact of current development on the town. Secondly, I believe the proposals for further development do not include adequate changes to the allied infrastructure necessary for a town where both hard and soft infrastructure are already under strain.

I oppose further development in Bexhill. First, I believe there has been insufficient evaluation of the impact of current development on the town. Secondly, I believe the proposals for further development do not include adequate changes to the allied infrastructure necessary for a town where both hard and soft infrastructure are already under strain.

Both the mental and physical well-being of the present residents are affected by living in an area, that already has increased stress through lack of medical facilities, lack of schools, lack of sufficient safe sewage removal, lack of parks and leisure facilities, lack of any useful and decent shops and lack of parking. Destroying more of our beautiful green field sites for yet more housing without improving any of the above would be a disastrous decision in my opinion.

We were so shocked, and in fact came away reeling, at the huge number of proposed dwellings west of Little Common, which seemed so disproportionate to the other areas:
BX20: 146 dwellings off Spindlewood Drive
BX21: 20 dwellings adjacent to the caravan site
BX22: 400 dwellings + plus 3000 m² commercial space south of Barnhorn Road
BX23: 340 dwellings north of Rosewood Park
BX24: 68 dwellings east of Sandhurst Lane
BX25: Medical Centre with 86+ parking spaces and light industrial units with 50+ parking spaces
BX26: 25 dwellings south of Sandhurst Lane
BX27: 540 dwellings on Beeches Farm and land north of Barnhorn Road
BX28: 384 dwellings at Northeye
And all having an enormous impact on the A259, already a nightmare with its heavy congestion, especially around the new traffic lights, because of that new Rosewood Park estate.
And we understand the Water Board is already saying their pipes aren't sufficient to handle the sewage as it is, let alone with more houses, and as for water provision, they've been struggling to meet our demands winter and summer, let alone with this enormous number of new builds! And what about BX20 and BX22 re Pevensey Levels SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and the Ramsar designated wetlands requirements? This breaks our hearts - it is surely essential that the ecological integrity of this unique area is preserved.
And as to a new medical centre, it's difficult enough to get to see a doctor as it is - many practices over the country are struggling to get new doctors; there aren't enough doctors to go round, it's not new buildings we need! (With more folk having to drive there, adding to the traffic on that A259)
And need we say about school places to accommodate loads more children? And more cars driving to schools?
One can't help but wonder why there are so many properties up for sale everywhere, when we're being told there is such a demand for more houses!

I have just read the latest plans and would like to ask where is the infrastructure for all this work to be carried out? At the moment the residents who have lived here for many years can't get to see a doctor and are waiting months for a hospital appointment and with a rapidly aging population that problem can only get worse. The school is almost full to capacity at the moment The water suppliers can't cope as it is and the sewerage system is abysmal..The bus service can't deal with the number of passengers and are nearly always late because of the amount of traffic along Barnhorn Road. I suggest the planners just down sit and think about those of us who have lived here for years before agreeing to this plans and ask themselves if they'd like to live in Little Common
I could fill a page about the sheer stupidity of the present plans, but know I'd be wasting my time, but I suggest that the whole lot is cancelled and let us still have a bit of greenery around us.

BX20 BX21 BX22 BX23 BX24 BX25 BX26 BX27 BX28
All, or any, of the above will all need to use the already congested A259 Barnhorn Road, causing more hold ups more pollution
more potential accidents. Little Common roundabout, is totally unsuitable, with 5 roads already onto it, to take far more traffic.
The sewage system , Southern Water has admitted that the narrow 9'' sewer pipe under Barnhorn Road cannot cope with current sewage and needs to be replaced, there have already been instances of sewage bubbling up in gardens along Barnhorn Road. Traffic through Barnhorn Road needs to be eased, not increased, maybe reinstating and completing the by pass would help!
We object to the amount of housing proposed due to the lack of local infrastructure to support the needs of so many people.

Glenda & Roger Foster
129A Barnhorn Road
Bexhill

BX5 The proposed 200 dwellings will have a detrimental effect on the traffic using Beeching Road; there are already hold-ups at the junction of Beeching Road/London Road. What market research has been done to support the idea of a hotel in that area? Hardly a nice outlook. This site should be reallocated for commercial/light industry and car parking, not housing.

BX7 What height is proposed for the 75 dwellings above Sainsburys? Car parking here needs to be retained at the current capacity; sometimes that car park is full and there is very limited other car parking in the area for shoppers. Concerns about the access points to the flats and car parking on an already busy road system.

BX9 Why allocate this site for housing? Keep the site as a commercial/service area providing some employment.

BX13 Object to building on this car park. There is inadequate car parking in Bexhill especially near to the beach. The DLWP car park is often full and there are no other opportunities for long term parking in that area.

BX14 Object to building 210 dwellings on Fryatts Way on a greenfield site. It has planning permission already but the extra traffic will cause safety issues and have a detrimental impact on local residents, despite what the appeal inspector concluded.

BX15 Object to building on this part of Broad Oak park. The Fields in Trust is to protect the land from alternative development and the Council should respect this. We need to protect our green spaces for the use of all residents, and this proposal for development should be removed from the local plan.

BX17 This is overdevelopment of this site, although it already has planning permission.

BX19 Strong objection to the Gorses car park being developed for housing. It is well used and is the only car park in the area for users of Cooden Beach rail station and the beach. It is not good enough for the council to say that there is plenty of on-street parking. This will cause disruption and congestion for local residents and no doubt will end up with yet another residents only parking scheme which will generate income for the council and inconvenience for everyone else. It seems that the Council has eyed up every small patch of green space and earmarked it for development. Strong objection to destroying the open space here.

BX20 Too many dwellings proposed off Spindlewood Drive, with access from Spindlewood Drive and Barnhorn Road causing more congestion along Barnhorn Road and resulting in a detrimental impact to Little Common generally. Too much pressure on existing services and inadequate sewers to cope with the scale of development. Loss of green space. Unfortunate that this already has outline pp.

BX 21 Object to another development off Barnhorn Road leading to increased traffic congestion and pressure on sewer and other services.

BX22 Object to the size of the proposed development in this area with another access to Barnhorn Road and the inadequate sewer. Object to the loss of agricultural land. This is a high density development and is likely to have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the Pevensey Levels. I doubt if the necessary protection for the ecology of the area can be effectively put in place. There could also be a detrimental impact on the Grade II listed building nearby.

BX23 Object to the expansion of the development at Rosewood Park. More traffic entering Barnhorn Road will create more traffic congestion. The land is in flood zones 2 & 3 which could create problems for the incoming residents and those already living there. Object to building on greenfield sites. The provision of public open space by the developer may not happen - developers have a habit of backtracking on their promises. How long will the financial contributions to improved bus services stay in place - will this be a one-off payment or long term funding?

BX24 Object to the building on agricultural fields. 68 dwellings in this area will have a detrimental effect on the area from overdevelopment and increased traffic movements which will use small lanes in the area. Measures need to be put in place to prevent run running and ensuring the safety of local walkers.

BX25 Although pp has already been granted for the doctors surgery which is to be relocated here from Cooden Sea Road, I doubt that the proposed surgery will be adequate to cope with the vast amount of patients from the proposed development in this area and may need to be reassessed/redrawn. The NHS will be moving towards more community based provision such as minor operations and this proposal for the surgery may already be out of date. What will the financial contribution to local bus services look like and how long will it be in place? We don't want to see any new service cut out in a few years time due to lack of funding.

BX26 Object to building on a greenfield site. More pressure on Barnhorn Road and more traffic congestion with a detrimental outcome for local residents and Little Common in particular. Lack of sewer capacity. Measures need to be in place to protect trees, ponds and wildlife as developers have a habit of destroying trees etc.

BX27 Object to the development of a greenfield site and agricultural land. Size of the development is too large. Detrimental visual impact. Yet another access onto Barnhorn Road resulting in increased congestion and pollution. What sort of financial package will be in place for the long term contribution to local bus services?

BX28 Object to another development causing traffic congestion on Barnhorn Road and the lack of capacity of the sewer in Barnhorn Road. Overdevelopment with 383 dwellings, due to the capacity of roads and services in the area. Will the financial contribution towards local bus services be everlasting? Or is this another empty promise from a developer that will never happen? Support the retention of a sports facility.

I strongly Object to BX39.
The proposed development is well beyond the development boundaries of Bexhill and Sidley.
This site has previously had a single managers house refused and now they want to build 500 houses! Absolutely ridiculous!
A development of this size and location will become a satellite community something which I'm aware Rother planners are keen to avoid and is contrary to planning policy.
The access roads close to the development will be overwhelmed with commuters especially at peak times. The affect on St Mary's Lane and Pairtree Lane would be absolutely unacceptable, making already overwhelmed country lanes even more dangerous especially for pedestrians.
This site has people visiting from all over and the loss of this amount of holiday accommodation is unacceptable and contrary to Rother's planning policy. The footfall from these visitors brings much needed support to local businesses.
It's for these reasons that I implore you not to allocate this site but to also refuse the subsequent planning application!

BX31 This development is too large. Car share schemes don't always work in the long term. Strict measures need to be in place to protect the wooded areas and the ponds.

BX 32 Object to building on agricultural land. Areas of ancient woodland must be protected. Measures need to be in place to deter rat running in small lanes where walkers will be at risk. Funding for additional or improved bus services needs to be long term.

BX33 Object to building on greenfield site

BX 34 Development is too large for this area. Too many extra traffic movements expected on small roads Object to building on agricultural fields

BX35 Protection needs to be in place for Combe Haven river.

BX36 230 dwellings here is overdevelopment. Object to destruction of the landscape and wildlife. Ancient woodland and wildlife needs to be protected as well as the grade II building. This development would change the area significantly.

BX37 Object to building on a greenfield site

BX38 This will result in closing the gap between Bexhill and Lunsford Cross and will result in too much urbanisation of this area. There is currently too much speeding traffic using St Marys Lane as a result of changed traffic flows following the opening of Haven Brook Avenue. Speed limiting measures should be introduced and deterrents to using small country roads.

BX39 Object to building on agricultural land and a greenfield site. 500 dwellings is overdevelopment of the countryside. Mature trees and ancient woodland need to be protected from development.

BX41 Object to the possible loss of football pitch. The development will cause too many additional traffic movements in a small area.

BX42 This will result in too much additional traffic in Turkey Road. There is already one new development in Turkey Road as well as the traffic from the brick works and the road towards Peartree Lane is narrow and potentially dangerous as cars tend to speed along here.

BX45 Object to building on a greenfield site. Overdevelopment of the area even though it already has outline pp.

BX50 Object to the loss of some of the car parking spaces. We need car parking to keep the shopping area alive. The car park is well used. There is nowhere else for shoppers to park in Sidley (Lidl's car park is for their customer's use not general use).

I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the proposed housing developments on countryside sites BX14 and BX15 in Little Common, Bexhill.
These plans represent a deeply damaging decision for our local environment, our community, and the long‑term wellbeing of the area. The countryside surrounding Little Common is one of the few remaining green spaces that supports a rich and fragile ecosystem. Developing these sites would irreversibly destroy habitats that sustain local fauna and flora, undermine biodiversity, and disrupt the natural landscape that residents value so highly.
The proposals would place immense pressure on already strained local infrastructure. Traffic congestion in and around Little Common is a well‑known issue, and adding hundreds of additional vehicles to the area will only worsen safety concerns, air quality, and travel times for residents. The cumulative effect of these developments has not been adequately addressed, and the consequences will be felt for generations.
The countryside around Bexhill is not an expendable resource. Once it is built over, it is lost forever. I urge the Council to reconsider these plans, explore more sustainable alternatives, and prioritise the protection of our natural environment and community character.
I request that my objection be formally recorded and taken into full consideration as part of the decision‑making process.
Yours sincerely,

[personal details redacted]

I support the development of Plot BX41 with a combination of housing a recreational use. This facility should be a priority for the whole town, due to the advantages that would come from the 3G sports facilities and the restoration of pride that once came from this well known sports and social venue.

BX50

The development of the Sidley Car Park should not be approved.

The site is a well used community facility for access to local shops, school, church and recreational facilities. The continuation of Sidley as a village, which should be seen as one of Bexhill's great strengths should be preserved, and further would act a commitment to the high street traders and residents of Sidley.

This site could be better managed to ensure a flow of traffic in and out of the car park.

It is already a highly developed area with housing units on at least 3 of 4 sides.

The car park draws in people from outside of the village of Sidley. Cutting off this space, or even reducing it, would further isolate Sidley as a community and would see an increase in the health inequalities of the area.

For full representation, please see attached:

Representations document (BX18 & BX27)

Beeches Farm and land north of Barnhorn Road, Bexhill
Vision Document - March 2026

I am sending a series of comments on the Draft Local Plan (2025- 2042) in respect of highways and traffic and secondly in respect of Foul Sewerage, as plain text. My comments are detailed and rather long running to 40 paragraphs. But I am unsure if you are able to accept these as an attachment.

Please note that these comments should not be regarded as an "Objection" to the Plan. They are a note of additional actions that in my view are essential for the plan to be effective.

Comments on the Rother Draft local plan 2025 – 2042 (Bexhill area)
Introduction
1. This paper is in response to the request for comment from Rother District Council Planning department on the Draft Local Plan for Rother District 2025 to 2042. Comments are offered on the topics of (a) Traffic and Highways and (b) Foul water Sewerage.

2. The comment is restricted to the area of West Bexhill, in particular, the areas named in the draft Local Plan as BX20 to BX 28 inclusive.


3. Development areas are defined in West Bexhill which could accommodate 1,923 houses plus commercial space resulting in substantial additional traffic throughout the day and especially in peak hours. However, there are no proposals associated with the local plan for any highway capacity enhancements before the developments occur, or contiguous with the rate of development. The main road in West Bexhill is the A259 which is also part of the national Strategic Road Network (SRN). If the housing developments proceed without highway improvements connected to the main road network chaos and bottlenecks on the A 259 will rapidly ensue.

4. There is a substantial mismatch of the proposals for additional housing in the Draft Local Plan and the proposals for access and highway capacity. There appear to be no proposals for enhancements to the highway capacity within the area of West Bexhill and no definitive proposals for the financing of enhancement of the road network within a defined timescale that makes any sense with the proposals for housing within the Draft Plan. The plan makes no sense to increase the traffic demand on A259 which is already overloaded at the principal junctions by 2026 and has been shown in previous studies to be 10 per cent overloaded by 2028 with existing committed developments. The result of additional traffic overload will be very substantial delays which will not be consistent with the purpose of the SRN to serve the economy of the wider region. In this region of the south coast the A259 serves an important economic function and connects the region with major ports and with the Channel Tunnel. Providing housing areas which result in severe traffic bottlenecks on the SRN is not in the national interest nor in the day to day interest of any residents or new residents of the housing.

5. Background papers published under “supporting evidence base” which is attached to the Draft Plan, include a report on possibilities for a West Bexhill multi-modal corridor but nothing definitive is proposed. Meanwhile the technical studies carried out in connection with various currently approved and operational housing developments (for example at RR/2018/3127/P) reveal that the highway network will be operating at a surcharged capacity in peak hours by the time Clavering Park is fully occupied. This particularly applies to A259 Barnhorn Road, the Little Common roundabout and A259 Little Common Road.
Additional dwellings in the Draft Plan with proposed access off A259 Barnhorn Road
6. The proposed development areas BX20 to BX28 are all shown with access to be arranged from A259 Barnhorn Road. These areas have sufficient space for a total of 1,923 dwellings plus 3,000 sqm of commercial space which may include tourist accommodation and a primary school as well as some playing fields. These areas are all more than 1 kilometre from Little Common even if direct pedestrian and cycle routes are provided and a great deal further from Bexhill.

7. BX 21 and BX26 are reasonably close to bus stops on Barnhorn Road but they are very small areas with capacity for only 45 houses in total. They may generate a small public transport demand. BX22 is larger and reasonably close to Barnhorn Road but it is not at all clear at present how access to Barnhorn road will be arranged. BX23 and BX24 are not close to public transport on Barnhorn Road, not close to the Little Common local centre and not close to any other major attractors. These two areas are north of Rosewood Park. Rosewood Park benefits from a direct route to Little Common from Stowe Drive via Oakleigh Road and Chestnut Walk restricted by width and bollards to pedestrian and cycle use. This connection encourages pedestrian, cycle and some motor cycle traffic and consequently reduces the vehicular trips via Brooklands Road. But the centres of BX23 and BX24 are considerably further away from the buses, school’s and the local centre. Vehicular trip rates by car will be significantly higher than found in Rosewood Park. However the rate at which people will be able to get out onto Barnhorn Road will be controlled by the traffic signals.

8. The centres of BX27 and BX28 are remote from all attractors. Residents in these development areas are predominantly going to be dependent on car travel. A vehicular travel demand which will probably amount to a peak hour trip rate of approximately 0.6 trips per household on the basis of the average of recent observation of the morning peak period trips from Rosewood Park and the trip rate used at the current development at Clavering Walk.

9. From current observation of peak period journeys from Rosewood Park 90% will travel towards Bexhill / St Leonards / Hastings. There does not appear to be any good reason to assume a markedly different distribution of travel demands. This means an additional total peak hour flow of over 800 vehicles per hour in the A259 west Bexhill corridor of which some 780 would be travelling towards Bexhill / St Leonards/ Hastings. Such a volume of extra traffic will cause a major problem on the A259 Barnhorn Road approach at Little Common roundabout (LCR) and probably at the Brooklands Road signalised junction as well as at the A259 / A269/ London Road signalised junction at Bexhill.

Traffic and Highways
Effect on Barnhorn road and LCR operation - A259 at Little Common.

10. The A259 at Little Common is part of the Strategic National Highway network and is therefore owned and managed by National Highways. The A259 and the A27 are the principal transport corridor which connects the coastal region of Sussex towns (Worthing, Shoreham, Hove, Brighton, Newhaven, Eastbourne, Polegate, Hailsham, Bexhill, St Leonards, Hastings, Ashford, Folkstone, etc), with major ports and the Channel Tunnel and the port of Dover and short crossing ferries to Continental Europe. A major function of the National Highway network is to connect main centres of population to important ports and it is therefore desirable for the A259 route to be kept reasonably free flowing.

9. The effective peak traffic capacity of Barnhorn Road (A259) is dictated by the capacity of the major junctions. In effect the LCR and the traffic signal controlled junction for Rosewood Park at Brooklands Road. The A269/A259, London Road junction operation also affects the capacity of A259 but this is further into Bexhill.

10. At the LCR the capacity on the A259 corridor depends on the geometrics of the layout, which affects the drivers speed of reaction to gaps and critically, the volume of circulating traffic on the roundabout which, under the UK’s system has priority over the approaching traffic streams. At the Barnhorn Road approach the circulating flows have priority and conflict with the approaching traffic. There is a significant volume of traffic circulating, in particular traffic right turning from A259 Little Common Road into Chestnut Walk and into Peartree Lane as well as traffic from Cooden Sea road going to Chestnut Walk, Peartree lane and turning right to A259 Little Common Road. By 2028 this circulating flow crossing the Barnhorn Road traffic totals to more than 380 per hour in the AM peak (6 per minute) as shown in the reference RR/2018/3127/P.

11. Similarly the circulating traffic conflicting with the Little Common Road approach to the roundabout is comprised of right turners making a variety of movemens and straight traffic from Chestnut Walk and Peartree Lane moving to Cooden Sea Road. By 2028 these movements are forecast to amount to over 9 per minute.

12. The redesign of the roundabout and its approaches prepared for the Clavering Park development makes maximum use of the available space whilst maintaining the minimum required space for pedestrians and mobility buggies etc, of which there are a number. There is no scope for further widening of the Barnhorn approach to the Little Common roundabout (LCR) without property acquisition and major redevelopment.

13. The analysis of traffic at roundabouts is carried out with the ARCADY computer suite of programmes (Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay), developed in the UK over the last 40 years and acknowledged, and widely used throughout the world. This programme suite has been used to analyse the LCR in connection with several recent local developments (Rosewood Park, and most recently Clavering Walk amongst them). The ARCADY analysis carried out for the current Clavering Walk development clearly shows that the higher the flows of circulating traffic on the LCR the lesser the traffic capacity of the Barnhorn Road approach. Over the AM peak hour the effective capacity is estimated at 1273 vehicles. these capacity estimates are lower than the ESCC estimates given in the background papers published with the Draft Local Plan.

Traffic signals at the LCR

14. ESCC suggest the traffic signals to control all or part of the LCR possibly with a reduction in the entries from 5 to 4, may enhance traffic capacity. But at the Barnhorn road approach on the circulating carriageway of the roundabout itself there is space only for a maximum of 3 - 4 vehicles to queue at signals without interfering with the exit of other traffic, assuming drivers position their vehicles carefully. The opportunity to signalise this approach is rendered difficult by the volume of circulating traffic here. A meaningful enhancement to capacity could very likely only be achieved by a substantial redesign and reconstruction of the junction including the movement of the war memorial and rose garden on the present central island.


Forecast peak hour traffic in 2028

15. The forecast for 2028 traffic at the LCR approach in the AM peak (taking account of committed developments at Rosewood park, Spindlewood Drive, Clavering Walk, and Woodhurst Grove west of Ashridge Court) is 1372 vehicles one way eastbound and 1242 vehicles westbound. Making a total of 2614 vehicles two way AM peak hour flow. However but the effective AM peak hour capacity on the Barnhorn road approach is only 1273 vehicles. The Barnhorn road approach is therefore 8% overcapacity even after the Clavering Walk improvements to the roundabout have been carried out. The excess traffic will be queuing at the Barnhorn Road approach to LCR at the end of the peak hour.

16. In the current year, 2026 the queues on Barnhorn Road in the peak periods are frequently seen to extend well beyond Kites Nest Walk, a length of 500 metres.

17. On the Little Common Road approach to the roundabout the traffic capacity is even less then on the Barnhorn Road approach. And the traffic capacity is reduced even more by the presence of the Pelican signalised pedestrian crossing. In the AM peak hour the Little Common Road approach is at least 7% overcapacity in the 2028 traffic forecasts. The excess traffic will be queuing at the end of the hour.

The Peak hour by 2042
18. To have a measure of the peak hour flows by 2042 one must consider the effect of long distance traffic growth and the effect of developments BX21 to BX28 all gaining access from Barnhorn road have to be added:
a) BX21 and BX22 south of Barnhorn road are estimated to accommodate 420 houses and 3000sqm of commercial space, which may be tourist accommodation;
b) BX23 – BX28 are all north of Barnhorn road and are estimated to have capacity to accommodate 1523 houses plus a primary school.

19. These development sites are more remote from the district centre at Little Common and the town centre at Bexhill than either Rosewood Park or Clavering Walk. Although good and direct cycling routes may be included in planning these future developments the disadvantages of the British inclement wet weather cannot be avoided. Thus the movements from the new housing developments here will be skewed towards car use. Some trip rates used recently in west Bexhill developments and observed from traffic counts, are shown at Appendix A

20. Considering an AM peak hour vehicle trip rate of 0.475 per dwelling (the Rosewood Park/ Clavering Walk average) and 90% turning towards Bexhill, Hastings and St Leonards, as observed at Rosewood Park in the current spring, then the total additional demand would therefore be for a peak hour movement of nearly 800 additional vehicles in the eastbound direction only.

21. The Barnhorn road approach at Little Common is shown in 2028 estimates to be 8% over capacity in the AM peak and this additional demand would result in a theoretical traffic queue at the end of the peak hour longer than 4 kms. This queue would extend beyond Rosewood Park (Brooklands Road). The long queue would therefore affect the operation of the Rosewood Park junction. This would clearly be unacceptable and it is likely that some development would not occur due to demand suppression, also other existing narrow and unsuited routes would come into informal use.

West Bexhill Muti-modal Corridor Study

22. Anticipating this highway capacity problem East Sussex County Council initiated a preliminary high level overview study of the west Bexhill area and commissioned Messrs Jacobs to carry out a study in 2022. This study was titled “West Bexhill multi-modal corridor and low carbon growth area”. The modes considered included walking, cycling and vehicles including electric vehicles and shared transport. This study considered a variety of routes for a connection between A269 and A 259 which are shown in Figure 2 in that report, including
· An inner route comprising improvements to St Mary’s Lane, Turkey road and Pear Tree lane to rejoin the A259 at Little Common roundabout;
· A central route comprising a new road from A269 skirting Chestnut Meadow Country Park, joining an improved Pear Tree lane (through the Highwoods SSSI) to its junction with Whydown road, then following Whydown road and a new road behind Sandhurst lane properties to Coneyburrow lane then following an improved Coneyburrow lane to its junction with A259 near the Apple filling station;
· An outer route taking the new road alignment adjoining Chestnut Meadow Country Park then turning north-west to cross Pear Tree lane and reach the Rother/Wealden boundary, then skirting Highwoods SSSI and the southern edge of the Pashley Farm’s Solar panels array to cross Whydown road and continue through Wealden to meet A259 near where it crosses the East Stream in the Pevensey levels drainage system just below the Custom Café.

23. The inner route serves no useful purpose as far as the proposed new housing areas is concerned. The inner route does not serve any of the housing development areas BX21 to BX28 and feeds all the traffic back into the LCR.

24. The outer route operating as a west Bexhill bypass would attract some through traffic away from the congested junctions on A259 at Brooklands Road (Rosewood Park). Little Common, and A2690 Combe Valley Way by attracting traffic bound for A2690 on to A269 and Haven Brook Avenue and creating a second east – west route in west Bexhill. The further out this route is aligned the lesser proportion of traffic it will attract. However this route as set out in the study would cross some 2 kilometres of the Peveney Levels towards Whydown and may encounter significant objections. Moving the alignment to higher ground towards Hill Farm may be possible. The alignment would then become very similar to that of the central route.

25. The Study comments that route permutations are also possible and a combination of the Central route and outer route north of Whydown may enable additional housing areas to be located.

26. However the West Bexhill corridor Study seems to have foundered at present over the preliminary estimates of the cost not being thought to be affordable. The County Council should seek Government support as the need for this route arises from the need for new housing as set out by the Department of Housing, Local Communities and levelling up/

Reassignment of long distance through traffic

27. In the Transport Assessment for the Woodhurst Grove, (Park Lane Developments) site (see RR/2016/3206/P) the forecast 2026 AM peak hour traffic flow eastbound was 1042 vehicles. This location is on the Bexhill side of Northeye. Considering traffic bound for destinations in Bexhill and the Bulverhythe/ St Leonards areas it is not likely that the outer route, peeling off A259 as far out as the East Stream would attract more than about 500 vehicles in the AM peak. This would include the 24% extra traffic attracted to A259 at the time of the first opening of the Combe Valley Way 10 years ago.

28. The central route is the most interesting for new housing areas. BX23, BX24, BX27 and BX28 have boundaries directly abutting the route. It would be possible for all of these four sites to gain access from a widened and improved Coneyburrow Lane and the northern part of Sandhurst Lane as long as the access to A269 is completed because much of the traffic would be heading for Hastings or the industrial areas in north St Leonards via Combe Valley Way. The central route would also attract through traffic amounting to about 500 vehicles eastbound in the AM peak hour originating west of the Custom Cafe. The future AM peak traffic volume on this newly improved road alignment would be about 1000 vehicles per hour eastbound in the AM peak. There is scope for some limited additional housing in small areas adjacent to Whydown.

Conclusion

29. As proposed the additional housing in BX22 to BX28 would completely overwhelm the existing highway network to the extent of being theoretically some 80% overloaded by 2042. The peak period traffic queue on A259 Barnhorn road at LCR would routinely reach a length of +/- 4 kms. Such a queue would be back along A259 as far as the B2095 junction, the turning for Ninfield and Battle!

30. The housing proposals on sites BX23 to BX28 can only realistically proceed if a Little Common western bypass is built and completed to a satisfactory standard. If a bypass is achieved to connect A259 with A269 and Haven Brook Avenue then the necessary redistribution of traffic can be achieved. The total AM peak hour volume of traffic remaining on Barnhorn road, including traffic heading for Little Common from BX27 and BX28 and eastbound traffic from BX22 would be about 1160 – 1250 vehicles at the LCR approach, which would be within capacity.


31. But these elements of the Plan will only work if the central route of the West Bexhill Study, or a hybrid of the central route corridor is completed with a vehicular carriageway of appropriate width for heavy goods vehicles and suitable cycle track and footways through to the A269 with a good connection to Haven Brook Avenue and Combe Valley Way. With this addition to the highway network and reassignment of traffic movements, the system as a whole would be brought back into balance in west Bexhill.

32. If the central route corridor is not completed through to A269 then the development of these new housing areas will stall and the highway system entirely dependent on A 259 alone will be in chaos.
Appendix A. Trip rates per dwelling used recently in West Bexhill [Table]
Notes (i) by Ardent for Bellway at Clavering Walk Development
(ii) by Milestone for Persimmon at Spindlewood Drive Development
(iii) From an AM traffic count on Brooklands road at Barnhorn road by Lawson in March 2026
At Rosewood Park a trip rate of 0.386 vehicular trips per household leaving the site and 0.196 trips per household entering the site was observed in March 2026. The traffic count at Brooklands Road / Barnhorn road junction was taken on Wednesday 18th March 2026, the AM peak hour volume of traffic turning from Brooklands road (Rosewood Park) towards Bexhill and Hastings was 90.1%. Only 9.9% were observed turning towards Pevensey and Eastbourne.

Foul Sewerage
33. The construction, ownership and maintenance of the sewerage system is the responsibility of Southern Water (SW) in Bexhill. Southern Water therefore ultimately has responsibility for foul sewers in the Barnhorn road corridor. However SW have responsibility for water supply and sewerage over a large part of southern England and are no doubt busy in many parts of their system. There is a need for additional foul sewer capacity in the Barnhorn road corridor. At present the sewerage operates as a partially combined system of foul and surface water drainage over parts of west Bexhill. In particular, this applies to parts of Barnhorn Road from Kites Nest Walk upstream.

34. SW are by law required to accept discharges into their system of sewers but they frequently do not react comprehensively to new developments. For example, the Rosewood Park sewers are connected via a rising main to the Barnhorn road sewer at manhole Reference 5801 near the Brooklands Road junction. Effluent is pumped from the pump house sump overnight when the Barnhorn Road residential flow is low but this strategy can be tripped up when it coincides with a prolonged heavy rainstorm that results in surcharge of the combined sewer. These surcharges can cause localised flooding as has happened several times recently. Also, the discharges from the Clavering Park development of 70 dwellings to a manually controlled sump at Clavering Walk prior to a rising main can put certain low lying existing residences at risk of flooding.

35. There is no sewerage capacity in Coneyburrow Lane or in the northern part of Sandhurst lane.

36. The existing sewer in Barnhorn Road has a head at the manhole outside No 160 Barnhorn Road and that now also serves the 29 house Woodhurst Grove development. This sewer was only a 150mm diameter pipe at the head of the sewer line enlarged to 225mm diameter from manhole 2701 outside No141 Barnhorn Road down as far as the manhole No 1802 outside the house called Little Lodge, No80 Barnhorn Road. From this point to the Little Common roundabout the sewer is reinforced and enlarged to 300mm and subsequently to 450mm. Considering the section of 225m sewer is serving some 80 houses, several of which are in multiple occupation as large care homes, plus Rosewood Park and Woodhurst Grove it is small wonder that the sewer is sometimes discharging under surcharge conditions. For this sewer to accept discharges from a further 1923 houses will certainly cause major problems of flooding especially for areas where the sewer is acting as a combined surface water and foul drain.

37. It is probable that the section between Brooklands Road and No 80 Barnhorn road, a distance of some 700 metres, needs further reinforcing and enlarging to 300mm diameter, as well as sections further down stream in Meads Road and Maple Walk. National Highways may have a view on the A259 Trunk road being so extensively dug up with major consequent traffic disruption on a section of the Strategic Road network. There may be an alternative possibility to lay a bypass sewer in the corridor of Brooklands Road, Stow Drive and Oakfield Road to enter the reinforced existing sewerage system at Chestnut Walk. This sewer bypass could pick up the Rosewood Park’s existing rising main to relieve the Barnhorn Road sewer of the flow from the Rosewood Park pump house.

38. It is to be noted that after an initial desk study of any outline development proposals where there is a probability of connection to the SW main sewerage system, SW requests a Condition on any planning approval if this initial study indicates an increased risk of foul flooding. This Condition may involve a substantial delay in the occupation of the development. Any sewer network reinforcement that is deemed necessary to mitigate this has to be provided by SW. If necessary to establish the extent of any works required the operation of the existing system may be monitored and S W will carry out detailed network modelling. That review of the network will take time. In complex cases requiring questions of feasibility, detail modelling and design, land negotiations and finally construction S W may require more than 2 years before some housing can be occupied. The sewerage system west of Little Common centre has the potential to be complex and therefore a delay of this order is likely for these west Bexhill development areas.

39. In any event the present head of the sewer outside No 160 Barnhorn Road is at an invert level of approximately 25 metres. Since the ground level falls to about 22 metres at the Corneyburrow lane junction the foul sewerage of BX23, Bx24, BX27 and BX28 will require sumps, rising mains and pump houses to enter the main Bexhill sewerage system.

40. Rother have shown a number of background studies and papers supporting the Local Plan in their “supporting evidence base” published coincident with the Draft Plan. But there is nothing regarding foul sewerage within the supporting evidence other than to record that it is the responsibility of SW.

41. It therefore behoves Rother to ensure that suitable foul sewer capacity is available within the Barnhorn Road corridor for the areas identified at BX20 to BX28 to be actually developed expeditiously.

With regards

BX14 & BX15 Land off Fryatts Way - the scale of the development in proximity to neighbouring house and Broad Oak Common is too dense and will over burden the infrastructure of the existing houses and flats. The overall impact on existing residents and wildlife is totally unacceptable. Destruction of nature & loss of biodiversity pose severe risks to natural systems, economies & human wellbeing. As an existing resident we are built environment stakeholders and insist Rother take meaningful action to protect the people and our nature. The additional 210 plus home off Fryatts Way and a further 40 properties in the nearby Queen Elizabeth II Field will destroy our community and our landscape for future generations. We want to live in a small thriving town not a city!

BX15 is part of Broad Oak Park. It was acquired as publicly accessible green space and always been used as such.