It is inevitable that this part of West Bexhill will be identified for development and to some extent it makes sense. However, BX20 to BX28 represents an incredibly large area and new population, which, the Supporting Text quite correctly states, cannot be sustained by the current infrastructure and amenities of the Little Common area, most vitally, the road network, which is considerably under strain already. A major new northern bypass, to remove through-traffic from the area is a minimum requirement, as is considerable development of routes out of the area towards Eastbourne in the West and Battle/Tunbridge and South East London to the North. Public transport that is not affected by congestion will also be critical for such massive development to work.

Q1
Strategic Spatial Objective 6
6.There is no overall strategy specified as to how economic growth in Rother is to be achieved. This will be essential to create demand for housing and services from the younger strata of the population otherwise Rother will continue to be a retirees destination as is much of the UK south coast.
Q2
Housing Target
3.4 The target of 8,427 over 17 year is unrealistic. The proposed sites already tend to occupy the only land within the local development area available to the north and west of Bexhill since development to the east has been ruled out and the southern coastal boundary precludes development. The timescale is significant and the possible effects of climate warming and sea rises that my well cause changes that might well prevent development in some area within this timescale. Consequently, a shorter time horizon of 5-10 years would be more sensible. Furthermore, all new dwellings should have energy saving measures such as high grade insulation, roof mounted solar panels (necessitating orientation of roofs to allow adequate solar insolation capture) and grey water recycling and storage tanks inbuilt.
Q3
Town Centre Usage
3.3. While possible uses are identified there is no mention or recognition of the need for adequate town centre parking to cope with increased footfall and, presumably, economic activity.
Q5
Infrastructure
7. Not only a focus on but early implementation of infrastructure will be essential for the Road Network, Rail access, and especially adequate parking at Stations. Adequate waste water disposal and fresh water provision must be in place prior to the planned occupancy of any new housing development.
Q10
Vision and Development Strategy for Bexhill
While this strategy recognises the limitations of the A259 and Little Common Roundabout it does not mention that the A259 is an already capacity limited highway ( regular traffic queues back to the Custom Café and beyond) and that all connections to this highway are really only country lanes that have very limited capability to handle more traffic. Mention is made of a possible bypass that would clearly relieve the problems that now exist on the A259 but no timeframe is proposed and all of the new development proposed in West Bexhill will only add to the already heavy traffic.

Q17
West Bexhill Site Allocations
BX18
This appears to identify most of the essential infrastructure upgrades essential if the West Bexhill area is to be further developed. However, it is critical that most of these improvements are achieved before any new house building commences.
BX19 This proposal is to reduce parking space and increase housing and is admitted to be contrary to national planning policy. I object strongly to this site.
BX20
This site has been subject to planning action for nearly 10 years. It still offers dangerous access onto the A259, and Spindlewood Drive as well as drainage problems threatening the Pevensey Levels with its identified environmental sensitivities. There is no adequate sewerage capacity available that the site could be connected to. I object most strongly to this site.
BX21
This site would add to the issues raised by BX20 and is unsuitable for development. I object to this proposal.
BX22
This proposal creates even more problems requiring solution as does BX20 and BX21. Such a large proposed development would create and even bigger threat to the Pevensey Levels as well as destroying the views towards the sea. There is also no access to the A259. I object to this policy.
BX23
Yet another very sensitive site with no direct access to the main road. Although cycle paths are proposed there is no plan or obvious way to extend these on a route following the A259. There is no access to a sewerage system of adequate capacity. I object to this site.
BX24
Another land locked site with no access. Requires use to proposed site BX23. I object to this site.
BX25
This site is necessary to develop medical facilities for Little Common and approved sites. It should have been developed several years ago. This is an example of infrastructure not being provided in an adequate timescale. I support this site.
BX26
This land locked site has too many constraints that must be overcome. I object to this site.
BX27
Apart from the obvious lack of infrastructure access to the A259 is on a hill. Such a large proposed development would add significant extra traffic onto the A259 for which there are no proposals to alleviate. I object to this site.
BX28
This site is in a very sensitive environmental location and isolated from the rest of Bexhill. The access onto the A259 is difficult and together with the other sites proposed to the east will provide major ongoing hazards to traffic on the main road. I object to this site.

The continual building on the Rosewood estate have proved the local infrastructure is already at capacity on the A259 and surrounding lanes. Building on the outskirts of small towns causes additional cars and increased air pollution and working people cannot afford the time needed to use public buses. The fields already have mature trees, hedges and ancient footpaths and back onto floodplains and SSSI areas. Digging this up will lead to a huge loss in biodiversity and flood resilience from run off. Rainfall/drought this year has shown the area cannot cope with less than normal weather and sewage systems are already woefully inadequate for the current number of homes within the area. How can building more homes do anything more than add stress to a struggling system? Shops in Little Common are closing where they cannot compete against online services and we already have a Tesco Express, corner shop, post office and pub. Who can afford these new homes and where will they work, considering coastal towns always have higher unemployment and low seasonal wages. If more are built, start building the schools, GPs and infrastructure BEFORE the company goes bust and takes all the money.

Very concerned. How this will impact on roads. Extra traffic. No extra GPs, no extra dentists, schools, secondary schools. All the infrastructure to support. Southern water still pumping poo into our seas. How is all this going to help our town. It’s horrendous how many houses are being built and have been built. I understand the need for housing, but it’s changing our small town forever.

BX18 - it all looks wonderful on paper, with the provision of doctors' surgeries, schools, community halls, pubs, etc, etc, but we've seen before how these promises fail to materialise once planning permission is granted (e.g. Rosewood Park). So, we risk filling many of our open spaces with more housing and no supporting infrastructure, while losing these spaces.

BX19 - this is a useful car park, both for the station and the beach, and I can't believe the local residents will be too pleased having more parking in The Gorses and Cooden Sea Road. No doubt this will be swiftly followed by permit-only parking, or having to pay to park on the roads.

BX20 to 28 (excluding BX25, and including BX28 - Northeye) would give nearly 2,000 additional homes, accessible from Barnhorn Road which is already groaning under the traffic from Rosewood and the Link Road fall-out.

Too much high density development (out of character with the local area), destroying the local environment for the people that live here now, with vague promises of infrastructure improvements in roads, transport, sewage ,water provision (all of which are already very overstretched) which will probably never happen as the houses are built before the infrastructure (which should be put in first). Once the houses are up and all those involved walk away with their profits locals are often left to foot the bill either by having failing infrastructure or by having to pay for infrastructure improvements which should be done by those making huge profits out of development/change of land usage. Planning is supposed to protect locals from those who would destroy local environment just for profit.

BX20: BX21;
BX22: This is adjacent to The Pevensey Levels SSSI, SAC & RAMSAR. Any building needs to take very special care so as not to damage these sites. The smaller BX20 is already struggling to fulfil this requirement. The entrance to this site has not been indicated, this CANNOT be the entrance currently used for the farm and still being discussed in respect of BX20, for which the planning agreement in principle, is for a maximum of 160 properties. Theses are taken up with BX20 and exceeded with the addition of BX21.
BX23: BX24: BX25: BX26: BX27: BX28: Total 1923 additional properties. The added traffic on an already congested A259 with the pollution is not acceptable. The sewage system cannot cope at present due to small 9" pipes. The need for schools, doctors and other facilities cannot be absorbed into an already overpopulated area.

Dear Planning Department

BX20-28 and BX31-46

These comments/objections are generic and thus applicable to virtually every proposed development site for Bexhill West and North (ie BX20-28 and BX31-46) since they relate to the essential need to provide appropriate infrastructure BEFORE any development site can be occupied.

In order of priority they are

1. Sewage capacity (Southern Water) – especially relevant to all Bexhill west sites (BX20-28). It is already well established and proven by Southern Water (please see attached EIRs) that the current 9” sewage pipe running along Barnhorn Road has insufficient capacity to cope with existing dwellings so thus cannot possibly cope with the additional sites mentioned in the plan and all of which will need to be connected to a new sewer outlet. The new system will thus require Barnhorn Road to be excavated along its entirety from Conneyburrow Lane to Little Common roundabout and possibly beyond along Cooden Sea Road, Meads Road and Maple Walk. This will take up to 2 years according to Southern Water and will obviously cause massive disruption to anyone using the A259. This, in turn, will be very detrimental to the local economy. The question is also raised as to whether the main sewage treatment works at Bulverhythe will be able to cope all this extra sewage.

2. Fresh Water (SE Water) – given the recently reported problems by SE Water in the Kent area (pl see attached summary of an Independent news paper article) in meeting capacity requirements there, it seems likely that a similar problem may also apply to the Bexhill area.

3. A259 (National Highways) – As mentioned above (see 1), a new sewer pipe along Barnhorn Road will have a severe impact on traffic flows and the local economy. In addition, all the proposed sites along Barnhorn Road (BX20-28) will be feeding additional traffic directly onto the A259. This will surely have a significant and detrimental impact on that road with even greater congestion than is currently experienced as well as increasing air pollution (PM2.5s) to the serious detriment of local residents living along Barnhorn Road. It seem certain that if BX27 and BX28 proceed, there would have to be some form of traffic management system at those junctions resulting in even greater congestion and air pollution. The A259 will thus become a total disaster area with serious impact on the local economies of Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings.

4. Nursery and School provisions – although there are references to some nursey and first year primary school provisions for both Bexhill west and north, these will be insufficient to meet the needs of the numbers of new residents and their children proposed. BX20-28 and BX31-46 if implemented in full will result in 4000 new dwellings = 8000-9000 new residents = many hundreds of new children. Furthermore, if RDC are to meet the government imposed requirements of 912 new dwellings per annum for 15 years = 13680 new dwellings = 30000-40000 new residents = thousands of new school places. At the very least therefore, 1-2 new schools should be included in the DLP as well as many nursey places. The current proposals are thus totally inadequate.

5. Lack of GPs and BX25 – whilst the move of Little Common surgery to Rosewood Park medical centre is to be applauded, it seems almost certain that there will be a shortage of GPs at that centre to meet the needs of all the new residents planned for the DLP (BX20-28). Furthermore, the medical centre being sited in Brooklands Road will result in a considerable increase in traffic flows into and out of the Brooklands Road, Barnhorn Road junction causing the traffic lights there to be invoked far more often than currently. This in turn will result in yet more congestion along the A259 at that junction.

6. Lack of Job Opportunities – although there are several references to job opportunities mentioned for both Bexhill west and north (especially at the Enterprise Park, Bexhill north), these appear to be insufficient given the numbers of new residents proposed in this DLP and for the future with up to 40000 new residents by 2042 (see 4 above).

For all of the above reasons, I object to the DLP and any clear commitment to significantly improving local infrastructure to meet the numbers of dwellings/residents proposed especially up to 2042.

Kind regards

Graham Stone

See attached documents:
- SE Water Concerns
- Southern Water EIR Request for Information - 21/07/23
- Southern Water EIR Request for Information - 22/10/24

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

1. Existing facilities will not be sufficient to cope with the excessive increase in housing and population. i.e.shops, etc
2. There may be new medical facilities included in the plan - will there be enough medical staff to service them?
3. Concerns regarding excessive additional traffic on Peartree Lane where speed limits are even now not being complied with. Traffic has greatly increased since the new bypass around Sidley. The road system needs a major rethink before additional housing is developed (Suggestions for Peartree Lane include speed humps,- Chicanes -speed limit restrictions to 20mph.)
4. Increased destruction of wildlife habitats which are already under a major threat. Many species are being displaced.
5. Existing pressures on water supplies will be substantially increased, Sewage facilities will not be able to cope.
6. A259 through traffic is already excessive without massive additional housing and associated vehicles.

Whilst accepting that new homes will be required in Rother over the plan period (particularly the desolate Northeye site), I consider the proposals for nearly 2,000 homes West of Little Common roundabout to be inappropriate and a detriment to the lives of the current population. On a simple calculation, 2,000 homes mean 4-5,000 people, at least 1,500 private vehicles and probably up to 1,500 children requiring school facilities. There would also be a significant increase in commercial/delivery traffic and additional congestion at the proposed doctor surgery site at Brooklands Road. I see no meaningful proposals in the Plan to improve an already congested A259 to be able to cope. There are issues with current drainage facilities in Barnhorn Road and we appear to be nearing capacity for available fresh water supplies. These concerns are acknowledged in the Draft Local Plan but I have little confidence they will be prioritised.

There is too much proposed development in West Bexhill, with Bexhill generally taking most of the proposed development resulting in detrimental impacts compared to the rest of Rother.
There is a disproportionate amount of proposed development off of Barnhorn Road which will become even more congested than it is now. There will be even more side roads accessing Barnhorn Road with even more traffic hold ups. This is the main coastal route and it will end up as bad as trying to get through Worthing. The increased proposed development will have a hugely detrimental effect on local traffic movements as well as traffic trying to get along the coast. Our existing roads are already in an appalling state of repair and will only get worse with the vast amount of increased traffic movements. The roads are not being repaired or renewed currently and whilst all these proposed new properties will mean an increase in local taxes, this won’t be enough to provide the upgrades that we need to all of our services. What measures will be put in place to stop rat-running through the smaller lanes which are unsuitable for large amounts of traffic movements, many without pedestrian footpaths. St Mary's Lane is already used as a rat run making it dangerous to exit the cemetery and properties along this lane, and this has happened since the opening of Haven Brook Avenue. The road network is unsuitable for the amount of development proposed. Traffic engineers need to consider the potential impact of altered traffic flows.
The main sewer along Barnhorn Road is already at capacity; how will it cope with the extra pressure from all the development that will join this sewer? Will it lead to flooding for the existing properties in that area? In a recent mailing from South East Water, (27th February 2026), we were told to save water because the Environment Agency has said there could be a 5 billion litre shortage of water by 2055; presumably that estimate is based on the number of existing users. The government has also set targets to reduce how much water we all use on an average day to just 110 litres by 2050. Currently there is an average amount used of 143 litres per person per day. We need water for life and for cleaning, and trying to limit what we use just because we don’t have the infrastructure in place to store it and get it to people, is wrong. How then are we going to have enough resources to supply the amount to the new developments proposed, not just in Bexhill but everywhere?
There will also be a need for more electricity provided. With the drive towards net zero we will need more power stations to meet the supply needs. It takes up to 10 years to build a nuclear power station – we can’t rely solely on solar and wind sourced energy to meet the huge demands. We should at least be compelling developers to provide all new properties with solar panels so that every household produces some of its own electricity needs. The bottom line is that the failing infrastructure that we have in the area needs to be updated before any development takes place.
There is too much proposed development on agricultural land. Surely after the lessons from Covid we should be striving towards greater self-sufficiency. With a vastly increasing population how will we ever be able to feed people if we keep building on agricultural land. We are living in an unstable world and we should be less dependent on imports.
We have been seeing year on year cuts to our public services, in particular Police, and Fire & Rescue Services. How will they cope with the amount of development across Bexhill? Will we see a 24 hour staffed Police and Fire stations in Bexhill in the future? How will it be funded? How will the NHS cope locally with the vast amount of new households not just in Bexhill but including the proposed developments across Hastings, Wealden and Eastbourne within the catchment area of our two hospitals at Hastings and Eastbourne?
We have a poor and unreliable public transport service especially along Barnhorn Road and so there will be a continuing dependence on car use and this needs to be accommodated.

(1) Concerned about building on flood plain.
(2) Concerned about the implications on surface water drainage.
(3) Concerned about the capacity of our mains water system to meet the demands for increased housing. Why are new reservoirs not considered vital infrastructure for new developments?
(4) Concerned that mitigation in relation to biodiversity may not be meaningful.

Qu. 17 Bexhill Urban area.

I see you are mostly using a hard site, except Land West of pages Lane. I hope the infrestructure will cope! Why are you building ON Eversley Rd Car park. which is used by shops etc. and why is Cooden Beach station car park going to be built ON. and used by many train users, will this discourage people using trains and driving to their destination. Or parking the roads.

Qu. 23. West Bexhill
So many houses to be built. I hear that due to Heavy rainfall the Sewers are backfilling into the houses in this area. the use of greenfields, to build ON is sad. all these houses, and the traffic to come on to the A259. which is already very busy & congested at different times of the day. So can this road cope with more!

Building on Northeye. Is it safe for people to live & garden on when the aspestos is removed?

Qu. 24 North Bexhill
Lunsford Cross. This is traffic is to come out on to Ninfield Road which is a very busy road. If there is as accident in Barnhorn Road the traffic is diverted through country Lanes to Ninfield Road. So many houses to be built on greenfields. Lovely county side. Handy these roads will not cope with all this extra traffic. The interstucture, as explained at the beging is just not there ALSO give respect to many different

Species of WILD Life, Insects and trees and plants. As we share our wonderful Planet.

Dear BEXHILL will never be the Same. Why build on Sidley Car Park. used By shoppers & visitors, carpark off busy road. No Street Parking.

Qu.1 Rother Local PLAN as this covers a very large area. Take notice of the people who live in this area.

Qu.5 THE Infrestructure of all these into areas, will have to be looked before houses are built! eg. water which is already a great problem to surply especially when the reservoirs are low. So more houses a real problam!

THE Sewer's old and new. Can the treatment plants cope!
The roads, how will they stay safe & maintained as there are many potholes already. plus this area has many county Lanes, not suitable for the heavey building Lorries! with all these extra people. how are the hospitals, Conquest, Bexhill and EASTBOURNE going to cope?

There is already a great shortage of Doctors & Dentist more people will make things worse.

See attached representations in response to questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 23, 38, 61, and 68

See attached.