Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

These comments are submitted as a joint response from the Spindlewood Drive Action Group (SPINDAG) and thus represent the majority views of a large number of local residents (c 400) living in and around the Spindlewood Drive proposed development area.

Of the 4 options proposed for BX101, Option 1- employment and redevelopment - is one of the better overall solutions. This is because there is a burning need for locally based employment around Bexhill and Little Common in particular and is especially relevant now that Barnhorn Green is proceeding with its 342 properties with little prospect of direct employment on that site.

If option 1 were chosen, a pedestrian and cycling link connecting BX101 and BX120 via BX47 and BX60 should be provided to connect to Coneyburrow Lane. This would, of course, be of great benefit to the residents, is environmentally friendly and would avoid unnecessary car access via the A259.

Option 2 - residential - is less desirable. It might be that this option might have to be considered if the overall Bexhill target set by RDC of 3100 properties is unlikely to be met. This may not become obvious for a few years and until firm plans and property numbers are known for sites such as

1. BX120 - the possibility of more residential houses on this site
2. BX124 - the possibility that more than 450 properties may be built here (Options 2 and 3)
3. The number of small and large site windfalls achieved during the period 2016 - 2021 may well exceed those envisaged by RDC in the Housing Land supply document as @ 1/4/2016.
4. It may well be that once these figures are known, any large scale residential development in or around Little Common may be rendered redundant.
Option 2 is not ideal however because of the impact this will have on the infrastructure of Little Common as a whole which will already be struggling with the impact of Barnhorn Green and other proposed smaller sites along Barnhorn Road and Cooden Sea Road. These could well result in a total of 400 new properties in a very small radius and thus no further large scale residential developments should be contemplated around Little Common including BEX9 (BX116) as well as BX101.

There is an option 5 however - a combined mixed site solution of options 1 and 2 . For example, 3-50 residential houses together with employment and redevelopment. This just might be the best solution of all.

Conclusion

Options 1 and 2 should be considered with preference give to option 1 but there might also be a compromise of a mixed site development combining options 1 and 2 but with only small scale residential development.

Large scale residential development of BX101 should be avoided at all costs to reduce the impact on Little Common's lack of suitable infrastructure.

These comments are submitted as a joint response from the Spindlewood Drive Action Group (SPINDAG) and thus represent the majority views of a large number of local residents (c 400) living in and around the Spindlewood Drive proposed development area.

The DaSA Local Plan Policy BEX3 (13.16) relates to land ref. BX124 to the north of Pebsham and Sidley. SPINDAG strongly agrees with this preferred site but considers that there is even more potential for development within BX124 than proposed in option 1 by developing option 3 as well. We strongly suggest that this would be more advantageous to all Bexhill residents and not just those who will be living on the preferred site BX124.

1. The main advantage of development within BX124 is that this is a new site without the physical constraints of an existing environment. Therefore, this offers a rare opportunity for a free and unencumbered approach for the development of homes and business space on a brand new site which would not interfere with or detract from other areas of Bexhill as other preferred sites undoubtedly would.
2. In order to minimise unnecessary car journeys and create a sense of community, it would be essential to provide local amenities within new developments. Site BX124 should enable suitable space for local shops and community facilities as already identified in BX124 option 1.
3. Access to BX124 will be via NBAR so the effect of new development here would not adversely affect the already congested A259 through Little Common.
4. BX124 refers to traffic constraints along St Mary's Lane but if NBAR were to be extended westwards from the A269 out to the A259 near the Lamb at Hooe (thereby creating a Little Common by-pass) , there would be easy access to BX124 from east and west without detriment to the local road network around St Mary's Lane, which has been identified as a key constraint/opportunity.
5. We note that Policy BEX3 option 1 refers to development to the south of NBAR but believe that RDC's housing needs could be better met by additionally adopting option 3 (which includes land to the north of NBAR) rather than putting extra strain on the infrastructure in other areas of Bexhill wherever land can be identified. Should there be a requirement for additional housing post 2028, further development to the north of NBAR could be considered as there is not only ample space but there will already be essential community amenities in place. Road access by bus or car via NBAR would also be possible without further road improvement.
6. In view of its location, BX124 is much better suited for development than any other areas of Bexhill and Little Common. BX124 will enjoy easy access via NBAR to Coombe Valley Way and thence to Ravenside, Conquest Hospital, GP surgeries at Bexhill Old Town and Sidley, Bexhill town centre itself and, indeed, the A21 to Tonbridge and London. None of these journeys would exacerbate the current congestion on the A259 nor add to pollution levels caused by traffic queues at congestion points such as Little Common roundabout.
7. BEX1 and BX113 commercial developments should provide employment for NBAR residents with access directly off NBAR itself which will be beneficial in reducing traffic movements and pollution and again would not contribute to additional traffic flow and congestion on the A259. It is obvious that, geographically and logistically, such advantages could not be readily available to new residents of any other proposed developments in Bexhill or Little Common.
8. Increased development in BX124, rather than elsewhere in Bexhill, would not result in a greater volume of traffic on the A259 with corresponding higher levels of pollution, which has recently been shown to pose a serious potential risk of dementia to local residents.
9. The construction of business areas within BX124 will offer many local residents employment near their homes. This is environmentally more sensible and preferable to building more homes elsewhere in Bexhill and for new residents in those areas having to travel to work in BX124.
10. Employment opportunities are very limited in Little Common so that people living in any new developments in this location would have to travel elsewhere for work. Their children would also have to be driven to schools in other areas. All these extra car journeys would increase congestion along the A259 and its approach roads. Surveys have shown that the A259 currently has to cope with a level of traffic which is already close to that forecast for 2028.
11. In view of this, we believe there should be no further major development in and around existing residential areas within Bexhill and Little Common since this would inevitably cause additional strain on the infrastructure (roads, GP surgeries, primary schools, parking etc.) which is already struggling to cope in many parts of the town.

Conclusion
Development within BX124 offers an exciting opportunity for a sustainable community with appropriate local amenities which would not adversely affect the infrastructure and lives of people in other areas of Bexhill. There is much better access to and from BX124 which would enhance the lives of its residents and not worsen the congestion and pollution on the A259 but improve traffic flow generally. An extension westwards of the NBAR (Little Common by-pass) would make BX124 an even more attractive proposition not only for people living there but also for other residents of Bexhill and indeed anyone using the A259. Should there be a requirement for additional homes post 2028 it would be simpler and far more environmentally friendly to extend BX124 rather than try to find sites in and around existing residential areas where there are no suitable infrastructure facilities or capacity.

1. These comments are submitted as a joint response from the Spindlewood Drive Action Group (SPINDAG) and thus represent the majority views of a large number of local residents (c.400) living in and around the Spindlewood Drive proposed development area.

2. SPINDAG is not opposed to the concept of residential development within the Bexhill area and is conscious of the pressures Rother Council are under to provide a suitable number of properties to meet their target of 3100 by 2028. SPINDAG have taken these imperatives into account when formulating their concerns as stated below.

3. The Spindlewood Drive development proposal (BEX09/BX116) is unsuitable primarily on the grounds of the lack of suitable infrastructure around the Little Common area. This concern does not just apply to BEX9 but also and equally to BX101 (Northeye).

a. Little Common has insufficient infrastructure to support further large scale residential developments on top of the other developments that are either currently under way or proposed and which in total could amount to some 465 houses. Current and agreed developments around Little Common include Barnhorn Green (BX120 - 342 properties), the former Nat West Bank in Cooden Sea Road (RR/2015/3103/P - 8 properties), 45/47 Barnhorn Road (RR/2016/2430/P - 8 dwellings); potential developments include land adjacent to Ashridge Court Care Home, Barnhorn Road (BX50 - (RR/2016/3206/P - 31 properties)), the former Co-Op site in Cooden Sea Road (RR/2016/3254/P - 9 properties) and Sidley Sports Ground Glovers Lane (RR/2016/3127/P) - 65 properties.

b. Little Common's current infrastructure simply will not cope with additional large numbers of properties and people. Little Common surgery is already close to capacity, there are no vacancies at Little Common primary school and no local secondary schools. There are little or no prospects of anyone finding jobs around Little Common and good train services are only available at Bexhill town centre, Hastings or Eastbourne. Shopping at Little Common is limited so larger shopping trips will need to take place elsewhere. In addition, the A259 is already close to capacity with 900 vehicles per hour in both directions throughout the day and this situation will be considerably exacerbated by the installation of traffic lights at the entrance to Barnhorn Green, the zebra crossing to be installed at Kite Nests Walk let alone the additional traffic generated by the residents of Barnhorn Green.

c. Due to the lack of suitable infrastructure, virtually all traffic resulting from the above mentioned developments will need to use their cars to go to work, take children to school and go to large shopping centres. This is harmful to the environment and will generate additional noise and air pollution especially around the A259.

d. There are serious car parking issues around Little Common with frequent and blatant breaches of parking laws as people double park or park on double yellow lines.

e. Any further large scale residential developments in or around Little Common will thus tip the local infrastructure into a state of crisis and must not therefore be permitted.

4. More Suitable Sites

a. There are far more appropriate sites to develop the properties proposed for Spindlewood Drive and Northeye. The most appropriate by far would be off the North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR - BEX3) - site ref BX124. Options 2 and/or 3 would be suitable (in addition to Option 1) due to the far better infrastructure availability for the residents and without serious detriment to the environment .

These include
i. Access to local jobs especially BX113 (with access directly off the NBAR) and Enterprise Way. Other job opportunities are also possible at St Leonards, Hastings and Bexhill and can all be accessed easily via Coombe Valley Way.
ii. Easy access to local schools including the newly proposed nursery and junior school in North East Bexhill as well as secondary schools, all accessed via Enterprise Way.
iii. 2 GP surgeries are within easy reach at Bexhill old town and Sidley
iv. Good shopping facilities are provided and easily accessed at Ravenside, St Leonards and Hastings.
v. A 24 hour pharmacy is provided at Ravenside and Tesco Extra at St Leonards is also available for long periods.
vi. Good train services are easily available at Bexhill and St Leonards Warrior Square without having to access the A259 (already running at close to capacity).
vii. Car access to all local areas is readily available via the NBAR and Coombe Valley Way and without needing to access the A259.
viii. The A21 and the Conquest Hospital are just a few minutes' drive away.

b. A second but far less suitable site would be BX101 (Northeye). This is a brownfield site so should be preferred over any greenfield site. The downside to developing this site for residential properties however, is the impact that the additional housing would have on Little Common's infrastructure including the A259.

5. The Spindlewood Site development (and others around Little Common) is superfluous

a. RDC have stated that they are not willing to take projected small windfall properties into account when estimating their target figure of 3100 for Bexhill. This is plainly wrong. RDC have well documented history of an average of 70 small site windfalls per annum being achieved over the past 10 years. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this will not continue until 2028 and the windfalls have no direct bearing or association with the DaSA process and projected development sites. The two issues are separate. An allowance of at least 35-40 windfalls per annum should therefore be incorporated into the DaSA process and projected housing completions. Without taking the windfalls into account, RDC run the real risk of making decisions on development sites that need not be developed (such as BX116) in order for RDC to meet (and perhaps) beat their target of 3100. Consequently peoples' lives and quality of life will be irrevocably damaged forever based on a false premise. That would be both tragic and unforgivable.

b. Using the figures contained in RDC's Housing Land Supply document dated as @ April 2016 and making allowance for projected small and large site windfalls over the period 2016 - 2028 as well as the recently proposed developments in and around Little Common as detailed in 3(a) above, SPINDAG estimate that Bexhill will be able to achieve approximately 3315 properties by the end of 2028. This exceeds by 215 the target set by RDC of 3100 and excludes the following sites
i. BEX6 - Turkey Road
ii. BEX7 - Fryatt's Way
iii. BEX9 - Spindlewood Drive
iv. BX101 - Northeye

c. Consequently, these 4 sites should be removed from the second DaSA consultation process.

6. Conclusion

a. The proposed development off Spindlewood Drive (as well as others shown above) is superfluous and inappropriate and would be highly detrimental to Little Common as a whole.

b. Alternative sites are far more appropriate in terms of access to local infrastructure facilities and minimal environmental damage, especially the NBAR site (BX124)

c. RDC must take small site windfalls into account when estimating the likely numbers of properties to be achieved up to 2028.

d. Spindlewood Drive (BX116) can then be removed from the second DaSA consultation process as it will have become superfluous.

These comments are submitted as a joint response from the Spindlewood Drive Action Group (SPINDAG) and thus represent the majority views of a large number of local residents (c 400) living in and around the Spindlewood Drive proposed development area.

As a group we are opposed to the proposed development BX116 of Policy BEX9 in its entirety.

We ask for it to be removed from the list of Preferred Sites and not be considered for any future development as part of the second DaSA consultation process.

* RDC have stated that they are not willing to take projected windfall properties into account when estimating their target figure of 3100 for Bexhill. This is plainly wrong. RDC have well documented history of an average of 70 small site windfalls per annum being achieved over the past 10 years. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this will not continue until 2028 and the windfalls have no direct bearing or association with the DaSA process and projected development sites. The two issues are separate. An allowance of at least 35-40 windfalls per annum should therefore be incorporated into the DaSA process and projected housing completions.

* We believe it to be superfluous: in the light of the capacity of other proposed sites to provide adequate development potential (for employment as well as residential properties) as well as the almost certain excess of windfall developments we feel that RDC can achieve, even exceed, its development targets without this development.

* We believe it to be totally undesirable. It is wholly impractical, likely to have a significant detrimental impact on west Bexhill, further burdens limited local infrastructure, is out of character with Little Common and based on highly suspect traffic predictions.

Is this development really necessary?

We consider the development to be superfluous to RDC requirements to meet its housing development targets. SPINDAG responses to other questions in this consultation, particularly Q27 show that other developments already at advanced planning stages or under consideration in the DaSA are already likely to enable RDC to exceed its development targets with no development necessary for BEX9/BEX116, especially if windfalls are taken into account by RDC.

There are already a number of advanced developments in the Little Common area, quite apart from the large development at Barnhorn Green. Residential development has been submitted for land near Ashridge Court at the west of Barnhorn Road (31), for the former Co-op building in Little Common (9 plus 3 shops), at 45-47 Barnhorn Road (8) and the former NatWest Bank building (8) in Little Common. These all add to the number of properties that RDC must see developed and their impact on local traffic levels and infrastructure demands should be considered in addition to the Barnhorn Green development.

There is credible evidence (based on RDC-supplied data) that far many more windfall properties will be developed in coming years than RDC supposes in the DaSA plan, easing and possibly exceeding the achievement of RDC's targets.

Furthermore, some slight increases in other more suitable sites will easily enable RDC to provide better located and better quality living environments for new residents than in BEX9/BX116 such as BX124 (Option 3).


Why is this development undesirable?

Local traffic problems

This is a high-density development being squeezed into a very small and environmentally-sensitive area with ridiculously constricted access.

As proposed, vehicular access to the site will be via Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive. Meads Road is already used as an all-day car park by residents, visitors and tradesmen and is effectively a single lane road. Passing traffic has to negotiate a right of way with opposing vehicles. Furthermore, the condition of the road surface in Meads Road is very poor and does not seem to be a priority for repair, or even routine maintenance, by the local authorities. The concrete surface is breaking up and residents report being aware of moving slabs as heavy vehicles pass their properties.

At present the small Spindlewood Drive estate serves about forty five properties. The initial length of Spindlewood Drive is also used as a car/van park by Meads Road residents and visitors, since Meads Road parking is usually at its capacity. These parked vehicles have nowhere else to go in the whole area. Vehicles entering Spindlewood Drive via Maple Walk west are thus made to approach a blind bend into Spindlewood Drive forcing vehicles to the right hand side of the road, risking running into vehicles leaving the estate.

Increasing the traffic flows into and out of Spindlewood Drive from that associated with forty five properties to in excess of two hundred is absolute madness, especially considering that this traffic is not only private cars but delivery vans, utilities vehicles, emergency services, heavy goods vehicles and others. Not to mention the fact that there is very limited visibility for traffic on Meads Road to see into Spindlewood Drive and vice versa due to the tightness and narrowness of the junction and the afore-mentioned parked cars and vans on both roads.

It is proposed that the former Co-op building at the end of Meads Road could be developed for shopping and residential properties, significantly increasing vehicle density and traffic flows into and out of the east end of Meads Road. This will undoubtedly see delivery vehicles parking at the very entrance to Meads Road, as well as shoppers who will not use the (Pay & Display) car park behind Tesco but prefer to park on double-yellow lines. The junction of Meads Road and Cooden Sea Road will become itself a log-jam even before the Little Common roundabout and A259 come under consideration. This junction is already dangerous, vision towards the south for traffic emerging from Meads Road is severely restricted by vehicles parked outside the former Co-op building, and restricted to the north by vehicles illegally (but with impunity) parked on the pavement to the north.

Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive are wholly unsuited to the level of traffic such a development would generate.

The would-be developer of BX116 has provided a barely credible "Technical Note" predicting an "immaterial" impact from increased BEX116 traffic on the Little Common roundabout (available on the DaSA web site, presumably with RDC's endorsement). It studiously avoids addressing traffic flows along Spindlewood Drive and Meads Road. This self-serving document seems to have been accepted at face value by RDC but should be re-assessed on a more realistic and analytical basis in terms of the impact on Meads Road, Maple Walk and Spindlewood Drive.

For example, the Transport Statement for the proposed development of only thirty one properties near Ashridge Court (RR/2016/3206/P) offers a far more thorough analysis of traffic flows into and out of that site and the impact that these will have on the A259. This document and its underlying model and assumptions would seem to be acceptable to the relevant transport authorities. Therefore, it would be entirely reasonable and enlightening to use the same models and assumptions to extrapolate the potential traffic flows for the 160 houses of BX116.

On this basis the following will be seen on Meads Road:

* Peak traffic flow (08:00 - 09:00 & 17:00 - 18:00) of between 90-100 vehicles each hour along Meads Road & Spindlewood Drive

* Total traffic movements of c 850 per day

RDC planners should view the BEX9/BX116 Transport Note with some scepticism and should seek a rigorous revision by an uninterested party.

There is a real risk, therefore, that some traffic for the BX116 housing estate will use Maple Walk as a rat-run alternative to Meads Road. Maple Walk is an unadopted road, much of it very narrow, effectively single lane, like Meads Road. The increased traffic flow along Maple Walk and Maple Avenue would be unbearable for their residents, not to mention the added wear & tear on roads which they must maintain at their own expense.

It should be noted that RDC's own Adopted Core Strategy (Sept 2014) states in para 8.56 that "access (to the west of Little Common both north and south of Barnhorn Road) would need to be created directly off the A259". This alone would seem to prohibit the proposed access to BX116 from using Meads Road and Spindlewood Drive.

Despite our outright objection to this development it is also worthy of note that the would-be developer, Mr Ellis, stated to SPINDAG representatives in a meeting on 2nd Dec ember 2016 that if the development were to go ahead all construction traffic would access the site via an entrance on the A259. If that were to be possible for an extended period for heavy goods vehicles, cranes, diggers and other traffic, why could it not form the permanent access point for the estate? Serious commitment by the developer or pillow talk? We have seen no credible Transport Management Plan from the developer which addresses the serious impact any means of development of BX116 would have on the surrounding area, whatever the access. RDC must insist therefore on a Transport Management Plan irrespective of the access point.


Density of proposed development

The housing estate proposed is far too high a density for the area surrounding it. This area of Little Common consists predominantly of mature detached houses. It has already been noted that the Spindlewood Drive estate has only about forty five houses. It is proposed to pack 160 into an area not much larger than that original development (allowing for trees, play areas, ponds, etc.). This near-quadrupling of housing density is entirely out of keeping with the local area and even residents of the proposed estate would find themselves with very a cramped environment with certain problems for parking multiple vehicles per household, probably including vans, caravans and camper vans.

Environmental Concerns

Although the would-be developer has provided an Ecological Appraisal for BX116 many issues remain to be carefully considered and studied further. There are valid questions to be raised about the ease with which their suggested mitigations can be implemented and their likely effectiveness. This site lies adjacent to areas which are designated SSSI and/or Ramsar sites, deserving of especially rigorous protection. These observations and re-assurances do not seem to have been studied and approved by the relevant utilities, environmental protection and wildlife authorities. The study was commissioned by and paid for by the developer with a commercial interest in this site, hardly an uninterested party. Not least are the issues surrounds drainage and flooding risks, SUDS designs and expectations. Nor is it clear who would be held responsible for any future flooding or environmental damage and how they might be sanctioned in the event of any failure of these measures.

One can foresee major disturbance to the land under development during the construction phase before these mitigating facilities can be put in place. There is, therefore, a serious risk of permanent environmental damage and wildlife disturbance not only on this site but the surrounding sensitive areas. These could never be corrected and the developer would have built his houses anyway. It is especially concerning that certain sections of the Ecological Appraisal have been redacted - why? By whom? With what objective in mind? This should be investigated and the public made aware of the reasons for this.


Wider local impact:

The road system, local services and infrastructure around Little Common are already due to be overloaded without the added burden which BEX9/BX116 would bring. The doctors' surgery is always packed (the new one proposed for Barnhorn Green having been abandoned), the school is over-subscribed and there are no secondary schools nearby.

It is a widely held view across the whole Bexhill district that the A259 is wholly unsuitable for the traffic levels passing through Little Common and Bexhill overall. Much of it is through traffic which must use the A259 as the only major east-west route along England's south coast. If anything, the new Bexhill-Hastings Link Road has added to traffic pouring through Little Common as it provides an improved route for traffic aiming to bypass St. Leonards and Hastings (partially). The much talked about Bexhill bypass comes to mind in this context - linking the NBAR to the A259 west of Bexhill would alleviate some of this traffic, not to mention bringing a huge area for further housing and business development into play.

There are few local (in Little Common) employment opportunities for the envisaged residents of Barnhorn Green, not to mention BX116, so it can be certainly assumed that these working residents will use their cars to go to/from work and that parents will drive their children to the (overloaded) Little Common school or elsewhere. Surveys have shown that the A259 is already carrying traffic levels which were forecast not to be reached until 2028.

We have learnt that no recent air pollution monitoring has been taking place along the A259 in Little Common (though a lamp-post mounted unit is soon to be installed). The lack of any current knowledge of existing air pollution levels is disturbing, given that RDC has already approved substantial new development projects in the area and is anticipating even more - without apparent regard for this serious, health-related issue, and doubly serious considering the increased proportion of children these proposed developments might bring to the area. It is already planned that traffic lights be installed on the A259 for an entrance serving Barnhorn Green which will create yet more standing traffic along that busy road.

The northern end of Cooden Sea Road is currently a free-for-all illegal car park, while the Pay & Display car park behind St Martha's church stands mostly empty, and this is before Barnhorn Green comes into being. Even more housing development in this very congested area will make life insufferable for residents, both current and future. Enough is enough.

Development creep

We have concerns about the longer-term risk of "development creep". BX116 lies adjacent to other sites which were considered for development (BX51, BX109, BX115 & BX61). These have been ruled unsuitable, often due to recognised flood risk (uncontrolled drainage from BX116?) and for the sake of views from elsewhere in the area, mainly from the west and so judged to be "out of character" with the local area. We believe that the current assignment of these sites to the unsuitable category would be put in jeopardy if the BX116 development took place. There would certainly be further pressure from land-owners and developers keen to cash in on the sprawl that an extended development south of Barnhorn Road would facilitate. If BX115 and BX108 are precious and worthy of protection to preserve the area's "character", then so too should be BX116. As they say in the sales: When it's gone, it's gone.

The Spindlewood Action Group - SPINDAG - has conducted extensive research, held public meetings and surgeries amongst local residents and found the vast majority of respondents to believe this proposed development to be wholly unnecessary and undesirable. We ask that it be removed from the second DaSA consultation process and not to be considered for any future development.

SPINDAG's asserts that traffic flows along Barnhorn Road had already reached levels predicted not to be achieved by Highways England until 2028.

I attach information relating to these issues.

1. The Ashridge Court proposal and associated traffic flows along Barnhorn Road (table 3.1) and traffic movements in and out of the proposed site of 31 properties (table 5.2). This latter table was used in extrapolated form to predict traffic flows along Meads Road for the Spindlewood site - http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28225
2. Comments on the Exigo report - provided by a resident Mr Geoff Lawson (an ex Civil Engineer with particular expertise in traffic management) - http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28223
3. Little Common traffic flows - also from Mr Geoff Lawson - http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28224
4. Question 27 submission from David Allen a SPINDAG Committee member with knowledge and experience in traffic issues - http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28248

All these documents support our case that Barnhorn road traffic is already close to capacity with potential serious implications for future traffic congestion once the traffic lights and zebra crossing are operational along Barnhorn Road near to the entrance to Barnhorn Green.

They also support the case that the traffic assessment report provided by Exigo is full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies and takes no account of the traffic chaos that will ensue along Meads Road and into Cooden Sea Road and Little Common roundabout should the Spindlewood development access be via Spindlewood Drive (and which is contrary to your own Core Strategy Document of Sept 2014 that stated that all access to new developments to the West of Little Common roundabout should be via Barnhorn Road).