I live in north Bexhill. The extent of proposed development is extraordinary. Water supplies are already inadequate for the current population. Many roads in this area are narrow, with no pavements, making them unsuitable for increases in traffic. The bus services seem satisfactory, although many people choose to travel by car of course. How confident are you that suitable and sufficient parking facilities will be provided in each of the developments; it's simply foolhardy to think people will merely travel by public transport when we're all welded to the convenience of car ownership. It saddens me to see this fairly unspoiled, relatively rural and green part of our town suffocated under a sea of cement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BX29 Will the proposed new residential developments be for local people or will these properties be bought by London Boroughs or other public bodies to house their residents.

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.

See attached.

NETWORK RAIL RESPONSE TO ROTHER LOCAL PLAN 2025 – 2042 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND
SITE ALLOCATIONS

These representations are submitted to Rother District Council (‘the Council’) by Network Rail
Infrastructure Limited (‘Network Rail’), in respect of the Regulation 18 consultation on the
Development Strategy and Site Allocations (‘the Strategy’).

It is important that opportunities to promote the use of the railway as a more sustainable modes of
transport are identified and taken forward. The railway network is a vital element of the country’s
economy and a key component in the drive to deliver the Government’s sustainable agenda. Rother
benefits from several railway stations benefiting current and future residents, employees and others.
These stations are also likely to need investment to ensure they remain fit to service future growth
and we would encourage the Council to work with the railway to secure this investment where it is
needed.

NR is the statutory undertaker for maintaining and operating railway infrastructure of England,
Scotland, and Wales. As statutory undertaker, NR is under license from the Department for Transport
(DfT) and Transport Scotland (TS) and regulated by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to maintain and
enhance the operational railway and its assets, ensuring the provision of a safe operational railway.
As a matter of course, proponents of sites which are close to the railway boundary or sites which
could affect the railway asset directly are required to engage with our Asset Protection and
Optimisation team (ASPRO).

On the path towards Great British Railways (GBR), Network Rail (NR) and Southeastern Railway have
formed the South Eastern Railway (SER) which operates services through in Rother. Further services
are also operated by Southern Railway In producing these representations, NR has consulted with SER
and Southern Railway and this should be considered a joint railway response.

Representations

This section sets out the areas for which comments have been made in relation to the Regulation 18
consultation.

Vision, Overall Priorities and Strategic Objectives

NR supports the proposed changes to the Strategic Spatial Objectives (SSO). In relation to the newly
added point 11 within the SSO, NR would encourage specific reference to the Government’s proposals
to provide a presumption in favour of development round railway stations, subject to other
considerations. This provides the opportunity for densities to be maximised, an increase in the use of
stations and investment into improving the rail network to cater for the new users. NR suggests the
following amendment (in italics):

Deliver sustainable development by making the optimal use of land, especially around railway stations,
including by prioritising the use of brownfield land and ensuring all new development is designed and
built to appropriate densities, having regard to local context and character.

Infrastructure needs

NR has reviewed the most recently published Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) in January 2026 to
support the Strategy. One aspect missing is the opportunity for a new station entrance at Bexhill
railway station. This will allow for improved passenger flows and extra capacity within the entrance
hall at the station, benefitting current and future users of the station.

Battle station has received central government funding to progress the proposed access for all (AFA)
scheme, to provide step free access between both platforms, to detailed design. Further funding will
be required to deliver the full works at the station. NR will provide further updates for the Regulation
19 consultation if any additional work or needs are identified.

Further, NR supports the Council’s intent to secure the timely delivery of infrastructure and we would
encourage the Council to refer to the use of planning conditions and obligations to ensure this
infrastructure is secured in a timely manner.

Preparing the Development Strategy

NR supports the changes proposed in figure 9 which seeks to deliver higher density development
around Bexhill, Battle and Rye stations. As previously noted, opportunities exist to provide additional
capacity and improved accessibility at Bexhill station and there are proposals to deliver an AfA
scheme at Battle station. Rye station has some step free access to platorms however it should be
noted that there is a level crossing at Ferry Road to the west of the station. To safely deliver higher
densities around Rye, a solution to the level crossing safety issues is needed. NR will work with the
Council to identify suitable options to deal with this matter.

Vision for Bexhill

NR welcomes the inclusion within the vision of reference to improving station capacity. This reflects
NR’s earlier comments. Increasing density in Bexhill given its connections would be considered to a
sustainable development strategy. Where possible, sites close to Bexhill station should be maximised
to enable future occupiers to benefit from the proximity to the station.

Vision for Battle and Surrounding Settlements

Battle station is proposed to benefit from AFA which will deliver step free access between both
platforms. Given this scheme will enable those with mobility issues and other means of being
encumbered to sue the station should open opportunities for better connections with existing and
future housing sites. We would welcome the Council’s consideration on how the AfA scheme at
battle station could support this. Reference should be made to supporting proposed improvements
at Battle station within the Vision.

Vision for Rye and the Eastern Settlements Cluster

NR notes the vision and proposals to increase growth in Rye. As previously noted, Rye station has
some step free access which could be further improved and consideration needs to be given to the
impact on the level crossing at Ferry Road.

Site allocations

Policy BX4 – Beeching Road Enhancement Area

NR believe the proposed site allocation should make a reasonable contribution towards improvements
at the station. This should be in terms of accessibility and supporting active travel through providing
sufficient cycle storage capacity at the station. This aligns with the proposed active travel
improvements within the draft Policy and ensures a connected link from site to station.

Policy BX5 – Land south-east of Beeching Road
NR supports the draft allocation and proposed financial contributions towards public transport as
within part v. This should specify the railway station as there are improvements that could be made.
Given its proximity to the station, the draft allocation should consider increasing the density to meet
the Government’s agenda of increasing development around railway stations.

Policy BX7 – Sainsbury’s, 1 Buckhurst Place

NR supports the draft site allocation at part v which includes providing improved public transport
infrastructure. The proximity to the railway means that a comprehensive masterplan should
consider how to improve access to the station. Given its proximity to the station, development here
should be maximised.

Policy BX9 – Land south of Terminus Road

NR notes the proximity of the railway to the south of the draft allocation. Suitable boundary fencing
and noise mitigation measures will be required to protect future occupiers. Additionally, some land
to the eastern boundary of the draft allocation is owned by the railway. It appears this land falls
within the red line of the draft site allocation. NR would be willing to discuss if this land is necessary
and how this could support the delivery of the allocation.

Policy BX10 – 30 Dorset Road

The draft site allocation is near the railway and suitable boundary fencing and noise mitigation
measures will be required. The red line of the draft allocation appears to be close to, and
incorporating, NR land. NR would be willing to discuss if this land is necessary and how this could
support the delivery of the allocation.

Policy BX12 – 2a Sackville Road

The draft site allocation is near the railway and suitable boundary fencing and noise mitigation
measures will be required. There are current issues of a collapsing wall impacting on the railway at
the site. Engagement with NR from early in the process is essential.

Policy BX16 - Land west of Pages Lane, Bexhill

The draft site allocation is near the railway and suitable boundary fencing and noise mitigation
measures will be required.

Policy BX19 - Gorses Car Park and open space, The Gorses

The draft site allocation is near the railway and suitable boundary fencing and noise mitigation
measures will be required.

Policy BX23 - Land north of Rosewood Park

The draft site allocation should explore opportunities to provide contribution towards improving
connectivity with the railway. The nearest station is Cooden however there is limited accessibility to
the station with no obvious prospect for bus services to drop off/pick up close to the station. There
is the potential for many occupiers to travel to Bexhill station which could put pressure on the
existing car park at the station. Consideration is needed to determine how this need could be met.

Policy BX27 – Beeches Farm and land north of Barnhorn Road

The draft site allocation should explore opportunities to provide contribution towards improving
connectivity with the railway. The nearest station is Cooden however there is limited accessibility to
the station with no obvious prospect for bus services to drop off/pick up close to the station. There
is the potential for many occupiers to travel to Bexhill station which could put pressure on the
existing car park at the station. Consideration is needed to determine how this need could be met.

Policy BX29 - North Bexhill Growth Area – Infrastructure Policy

Consideration should be given as to how best to connect the Growth Area with the public transport
and the railway. The draft site allocations within the Growth Area should consider how they can
contribute, individually and cumulatively, to improving access to the railway.

Proposed Site Allocations for Battle and Surrounding Areas

Policy BT1 - Land south of Hastings Road, Battle

The proximity of the site to Battle railway station means a contribution should be sought to ensure
delivery of the AfA scheme at the station to support growth.

Proposed Site Allocations for Rye and the Eastern Settlements Cluster

Policy RY6 - Former Council Depot, Cyprus Place

The proximity of the site to the Ferry Road level crossing means the impact of pedestrian and car
movements need to be considered in respect of railway safety.

Policy RY9 - Former Lower School Site, off Ferry Road, Rye

The proximity of the site to the Ferry Road level crossing means the impact of pedestrian and car
movements need to be considered in respect of railway safety.

Conclusions

We welcome the Council’s approach to securing infrastructure and promoting the railway. We look
forward to continued collaboration as the Plan develops and seeking to make best use of the rail
network and the opportunities presented from this.
I trust the above is helpful and we hope our representations will be considered. We would welcome
a follow up meeting to expand on the points made.

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

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