As a town we have already had several housing developments built yet no additional infrastructure added. False promises of this happening. I have three children and already find it difficult to get medical appointments for them. I’m dissapointed - I used to love living here.

Plan Ref BX39
There is too much development planned for the west of Bexhill especially Lunsford Cross, this is a small hamlet area and already struggles on occasions with power outages and low water pressure etc. (can UK Power Networks & SE Water cope with this planned demand?)
With all these planned satellite areas for additional houses this could be better accommodated in a single area north of Bexhill (less environmental issues).

This would greatly improve transport links (better roads) to larger shopping areas with dedicated busses, good size local shops, health centre, school etc. all in one area. This would mitigate a lot of environmental issues for these other planned satellite rural sites and traffic problems and also would give a better community hub for these new dwellings with proper facilities.

Rother should investigate more brown field site areas and empty property (convert to flats) in the town centre.

At this stage, we do not have evidence of additional specific sites in Bexhill that should be allocated beyond those already identified in the draft Local Plan. It is, however, essential that any new allocations or changes to existing sites continue to consider supporting infrastructure, particularly Primary Care provision, to ensure that healthcare services can accommodate additional residents.

Re. BX7. Can this be extended to build over the railway line up to the Bexhill Railway station? To allow the development of office or residential accommodation, with access from Buckhurst Place and Devonshire Square.

With the current road network and infrastructure, I can think of little land in Bexhill that can be redeveloped. The fact that the government want you to build houses doesn't mean you should just build them willy nilly and let the traffic build up. Nor are there many cycle lanes in Bexhill, and those few that exist (Cooden Drive for example) are just used by residents' visitors as spare parking when they can't tbe bothered to use the drive. You need to completely rethink this local plan. By definition we have no access from the South, and the roads in and out from Eastbourne, Hastings and Hailsham are already struggling. If you want to change the nature of Bexhill and increase its size by 500 houses a year, find some land to build a major road on and get digging. Otherwise think again.

Bexhill has been completely abused by allowing so much destruction of greenfield. There is so much brownfield that no greenfield need be used. The Ravenside Shopping area has warehouse shops taking up large amounts of space overlooking the sea. There is also potential for a railway station there. The shops along with warehouses and the swimming pool occupy prime land suitable for apartments with sea views and access to work, shops and transport.

Please see response to question 17.

Site BX15
Firstly this site is accessible by the public who use the area frequently but I object to yet another loss of open space . It is an absolute disgrace that another area is going to be concreted over with the loss of habitat for wildlife which is under immense pressure. Why can this area not be incorporated into the Broad Oak Park allowing both wildlife and the local residents to enjoy a much needed open space.

Within the town of Bexhill On Sea and the immediate outskirts there are vacant properties in poor repair and in other areas run down industrials areas - these could be converted to residential and provide new homes where people are connected to the town services. Why build homes out of town when public transport is very poor and all that is achieved is to add yet more cars to the already failing road structure.

BX19 - This should include the Police Station site. The building is completely under utilised and a waste of space, more like a tea room and a small offce could suffice if even that is required. There is probably space for 30-40 flats on the site.

See attached representation for full response to questions 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18 which includes sites:
• Land east of Watermill Lane (BEX 34);
• Part of Land north of A2691 NBAR (east), Bexhill (BEX 36);
• Land north of Rosewood Park, Gotham Farm, Bexhill (BEX 23);
• Land south of Whydown Road (BEX 24); and
• Bexhill, Land at Gotham Farm (west), Sandhurst Lane, Bexhill (HELAA ref BEX0206)

Please see attached:

- Catesby Strategic Land and Rurban Estates - BX36 - Representation
- Appendices Part 1
- Appendices Part 2

Please see attached documents for representations relating to BX39 Land west of Ninfield Road, Bexhill:

- Representation Document
- Appendices Part 1
- Appendices Part 2

1. This is a letter of response to Rother’s Local Plan 2025–2042; a plan which Rother District Council has been developing over several years, yet upon which residents have only a couple of months to digest and respond.
2. Why is this consultation period so short, and do not those affected by Rother District Council’s Local Plan deserve better in terms of timescale—particularly when Rother DC is permitted to wait up to 20 working days to respond to questions from the public (FoI)?
3. What considerations has Rother District Council given to these timescales, and what impact assessments have been made in terms of the public’s ability to respond?
4. For example, I only found out about the St Mark’s Church (Little Common) consultation after it had taken place, although it was suggested there was no level (wheelchair) access into the premises anyway.
5. Rother’s Local Plan 2025–2042 is a blueprint for the unsustainable urbanisation of Bexhill on Sea and Robertsbridge (etc.) to the detriment of local wildlife and nature, including protected species such as badgers.
6. The word badger appears only once in the Local Plan, yet there are potentially multiple sites that will adversely affect their habitat. Why?
7. Indeed, site BX16 would lead to the unacceptable decimation of a meadow containing protected species, yet this impact is not mentioned in the Local Plan. Why the omission?
8. The Local Plan should (as a matter of urgency) be designating sites such as BX16 as protected wildlife sanctuaries. Why does it not do so?
9. There are numerous sites that will unacceptably decimate green natural areas, whether it be a pocket of greenery at Cooden (BX19) or the extensive urbanisation of greenfield sites such as BX20, BX22, BX23, BX24, BX32 and BX33.
10. In destroying the character of Bexhill, has Rother DC no shame?
11. The existence of the radio antenna and its two supporting towers have enabled the Local Authority to euphemistically describe this BX16 meadow as a “brownfield” site ready for development. Presumably, having built a car park on part of the public open space at The Gorses (BX19) enables the Local Authority to also use the euphemism “brownfield” in order to support its urbanisation plans?
12. What impact assessments have been made as to the potential loss of these green areas to nature?
13. What impact assessments have been made as to the potential loss of these green areas to the well being of society?
14. If no impact assessments have been undertaken, what was the decision making process behind not doing so?
15. Yet there is a huge “green” area in non agricultural use immediately adjacent to Cooden Beach railway station, which is located on an important railway route with frequent direct services to Ashford, Rye, Hastings, Eastbourne, Lewes, Brighton, Gatwick Airport and London.
16. The provision of a new railway line to Bexhill’s sprawling housing developments is not viable; the potential relocation of a “brownfield” golf course (whose attendees do not travel by rail) to enable a sustainable housing development has simply been ignored. Perhaps too many Council officials play golf.
17. What was the decision making process behind not including this potentially valuable development site in the Local Plan?
18. The Local Plan goes into much detail, claiming many “facts and figures” in an attempt to justify this urbanisation, including why sites identified in 2024 (HEDNA) are no longer “sufficient”.
19. However, the Local Plan does not address simple practicalities such as the traffic levels generated by these developments, either into Bexhill or to adjacent towns along a restricted road network.
20. Traffic entering Bexhill (perhaps to visit all the charity shops) will end up “fighting” for the limited parking spaces that exist—apart from the car park to the rear of Endwell Road (BX11), which is to be built upon.
21. The Local Plan includes many references to sustainable transport, including walking and cycling (all very laudable), yet Bexhill on Sea has a significantly higher than average elderly population compared to the rest of the UK. As of 2021/2022 data, it has one of the oldest median ages for a town of its size in the country.
22. However, the Plan includes very little to address the needs of this elderly population (the word “elderly” appears only twice within definitions).
23. For example, not all bus routes are serviced by accessible buses, and whilst some railway stations have ramped access, this does not meet modern accessibility standards. Yet housing development is proposed without improvements to such public transport infrastructure.
24. Why are these accessibility issues not included in the Local Plan?
25. What amount of housing is being included to enable elderly and disabled persons to enjoy independent living in an accessible house, on an accessible public transport route, with a private garden?
26. On a wider issue, beaches along the South Coast have suffered unacceptable levels of sewage discharge from water companies who cannot cope with existing demand. The Local Plan will only add to this demand without providing any solutions beyond “provide for an acceptable connection to the local sewerage system”.
27. Why has Rother’s Local Plan not addressed the current lack of sewerage capacity, nor the impact that its developments will have upon it?
28. Then there is the inadequate water supply to the area—indeed to most of East Sussex and Kent. The Local Plan remains silent on this issue despite all the pages of so called “facts and figures” on national housing needs.
29. The water companies operate to five year plans, yet the Local Plan runs to 2042. Has Rother DC considered the future disconnect between the two timescales, and if so, how will this be addressed?
30. Why is the Local Plan selective in addressing national issues such as housing needs, but not water supply and sewerage needs?
Finally, as a reasonable adjustment for disabilities (Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010), I request that Rother District Council provide confirmation of receipt of this letter by their Planning Policy Department.

See attachments

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

Please see attached representations responding to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18 & 24

- Covering Letter March 2026 regarding Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 Development Strategy and Site Allocations regarding Sea Change Sussex’s representations
- Representations of Sea Change Sussex answering questions in the Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Key issues raised in representations:
1. The Retail Study and underestimation of need
2. Countryside Park use of retail park car park
3. Development densities on existing allocation sites
4. Development contributions
5. Pressures from unmet housing needs
6. Strategic Gap options
7. Blanket buffer approaches to habitat on BX47
8. Additional sites suggested

Please also see Call for Sites site submission of BEPNX- Bexhill Enterprise Park North Expansion Land, as set out in attached documents below:

- Call for Sites site submission form regarding submission of site: BEPNX- Bexhill Enterprise Park North Expansion Land
- DaSA excerpt of the Strategic Gap at Bexhill, Crowhurst and Battle
- Responses to questions 5a, 6c, 7b and 8a in the Call for Sites site submission form regarding submission of site: BEPNX- Bexhill Enterprise Park North Expansion Land
- Site outline plan of Bexhill Enterprise Park North Expansion Land
- Accurate Visual Representations for Bexhill Enterprise Park North Feb 2020
- Accurate Visual Representations for Bexhill Enterprise Park North Aug 2019