Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

The site in question is outside the Fairlight development boundary and classified as an AONB, it is productive farmland, which is much needed for food production, it is host to a diverse range of ecosystems supporting dozens of species of birdlife, mammals, reptiles & insect life. Fairlight also has the benefit of "Dark Night Skies". The Landscape assessment appears to have been carried out with this development in mind rather than from a neutral perspective, how is the visual impact low when the site can be seen from more than half of Fairlight Cove village, from the country park and from "upper" Fairlight. Landscape sensitivity would be Medium-High not Medium-Low, Landscape Value is correct at High, this would make the landscape capacity "Low".

"The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014-2019
Loss of productive farmland, there were 3192 registered farm holdings in 2008, by 2010 this had dropped to 1563, there was a corresponding job toss in agriculture of almost 1000 jobs, with a knock on effect for related jobs & services. RDC claim to have a policy of fostering & supporting farming & the continued use of farmland for farming.

The primary purpose of AONB is to "Conserve & Enhance natural beauty" '"Natural Beauty" is not just the look of the landscape, but includes landform and geology, plants and animals, landscape features and the rich history of human settlement over the centuries'. More recently the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 clarified that land used for agriculture, woodlands, parkland or with physiographical features partly the product of human intervention in the landscape, is not prevented from being treated as an area of 'natural beauty'.

Nowhere in this plan is it indicated how this proposed development will conserve & enhance natural beauty, if anything the reverse is true & so it is unsound.

Section 3. 2.2 mentions the "virtually continuous ribbon development from Hastings to Cliff end", 3 gaps of 1/2 mile hardly fall into the continuous category.

Section 4. 3.4 Landscape Assessment area B2 "The wooded ghyll stream to the south of this site is a key component of the character of which could be affected if this part of the site were to be developed", that same stream runs all the way down from the country park through area B1, how will developing B1 not affect the wooded ghyll in the same way? The stream is not "mainly culverted" it is in fact mainly open save for where it is crossed by a road. The back gardens of Broadway form only a small part of the southern boundary as the road pulls away from the filed after a short distance. "Natural Character" The2 of the major field boundaries are mentioned, then the writer goes on to say the field boundaries are lost? Which is it? The OS map of 1883 shows the same boundaries as today with the addition of the houses built along Pett Level rd & Waites Lane, the former boundaries being the roads themselves, the other 2 boundaries remain unchanged. Area B1 was separated from B2 by the still existing hedgerow, it is B2 that has lost its divisional hedge.

Local views from public areas are not restricted, indeed the land is visible from more than 50% of the village & even more so as one moves up to the country park.

At present the experience of dark night skies is not affected by lighting from the houses as they are all drawn back from the field, I doubt the report writer has seen the area at night or possible at all. enclosed maps show that contrary to the report: the field called B1 has not changed, B2 has.

Map supplied: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31125

As pointed out the local services are quite limited, the bus service is only hourly & is often subject to long delays or restricted services due to Stagecoach operational constraints. As pointed out there are no schools in Fairlight, the nearest primary school is some 3 miles away & several times oversubscribed. Most residents have to rely on a car if they really need to get anywhere with any degree of punctuality, the building of out of town complex's such as Glynn Gap make matters worse, the 2011 survey by FPC showed that only 7% feel they can rely on the bus service. There is no leisure, recreational or sports facility for younger people except for a once a week youth club & a playground for younger children. This leads to boredom & or increased traffic as parents ferry children to & from Hastings, Rye, etc.

From the perspective of a commuter Fairlight might as well be an island, it is not possible to get a bus early enough to be able to get a commuter train to London or indeed most major SE towns, even Brighton is 2+ hours by public transport, hence the higher number of retired people. Due to journey times & timetable clashes a commuter train for London leaves Hastings before the first bus starts at Fairlight & vice versa on return, this makes a car or two absolutely necessary for working people. This is not in keeping with NPPF policies regarding sustainability & building around transport & infrastructure already in place.

Further to the statement on the plan, the class "C" road has seen a large number of accidents over the past years including a fatality. Many road users struggle to pass on-coming vehicles due to the narrowness, this leads to localised congested points. The traffic management at Ore often causes tailbacks, any additional traffic will only cause to exacerbate these problems. A number of drivers try to shortcut by using Martineau lane, this then leads to issues for other residents in that area and so on.

Any development will entail much heavy machinery for which the only route is along the Fairlight road, the road is as observed, narrow, tight bends & restricted visibility, it also has a good deal of surface damage & some significant potholes, all these factors make the scheme wholly unsuitable.

Hastings Borough Councils intended new Country Park visitor centre is expected to generate significant additional traffic including coaches from local schools, all struggling to use the already overcrowded inadequate infrastructure.

There does not appear to be any plans for major infrastructure improvements by ESCC & Highways department for Fairlight or the surrounding roads & villages.

The proposed access point for the site is on a bend where there is already a junction with limited visibility, additional traffic at this point will lead to more accidents.

How can you highlight issues of road safety & then try to justify this development.

See enclosed photographs clearly showing the impossibility of 2 way traffic at pinch points.

Photographs supplied: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31124

There is no research led justification for this allocation, local need is met by available housing & the Market Garden site FC1 more than meets the local requirements for affordable housing, this is a case of offloading people from other areas. The practice is unsuitable for their needs & indeed can be detrimental to their
physiological, physical & emotional well-being as well as causing further financial hardship. The rush to build houses anywhere at any cost actually has a greater human cost, people need to have affordable housing close to family friends social connections, transport & employment.

This policy is forcing people towards car based living, with little useful connection to public transport or realistic opportunities for safe cycling.

Don't rush to comply blindly with government policies, make positive & effective challenges & put people before policies.

The NPPF makes it clear that we should be building places that engender healthy lifestyles and that we should encourage active travel. We are supposed to be building for a low carbon future. We are supposed to build around sustainable transport. Many of the places we have seen take us in exactly the opposite direction on all counts.

The car-based nature of many new developments we saw engendered US type life-styles, although in America the homes themselves are at least large with land surrounding them. With limited or even absent public transport, teenagers need lifts for many activities and have little independence in terms of going out. Older people who can't drive or parents at home with young children are stuck as there is little to do locally. We saw places that had hardly a soul walking during our visit. Even if you can afford the home, the question is: can you afford two cars and the expense
We need to use geographical and economic analysis in deciding where to build rather than leaving it to a system of arbitrary targets. The current methodology for calculating targets for new homes for each local authority is based on continuing past housing trajectories rather than informed and data driven analysis including the
transport needs of an expanding population. The current system ends up targeting rural or semi rural areas which mean hundreds of new car-based estates. Planners are under fantastic pressure to accept large sites offered by developers for the mandatory 'five year housing supply' and Local Plans assimilate these without
putting down a funded public transport system or cycle network to pin everything together. Fields of houses often end up as car-based estates without much else to offer.