Barnhorn Green - New Development
posted by caroline on 23 Jan 2012 at 10:59 am
I am fuming about the proposed development on Barnhorn Green to extend Little Common!!! We moved here for the reason that it is a village. What they failed to mention in the paper is that 40% of it will be social housing which is a large percentage. Industrial units - do we really need these when there are too many empty places around already. They also havent taken into account that unless they have there own doctors and dental surgery on site where will these people go??
And as for the traffic which is already bad enough on Barnhorn road it is only going to get worse. Our lovely village will eventually turn into a big estate. This will effect the whole of bexhill and not just those who live in Little Common.
< back to previous | Post Follow-up |
Follow up messages
posted by Cary on 25 Jan 2012 at 1:18 pm
I don't believe that this is the first time that such a development has been proposed here.
The fundamental problem that a development of this magnatude presents is with the current local infrastructure, or lack of, as you have stated.
The current road system is woefully inadequate. Apart from issues of doctors & surgery's, we already have enormous problems surrounding the standards and lack of choice of local hospitals, Primary and Senior schools and leisure/ sports facilities. They already cannot cope.
If the Ring Road does eventually go ahead, this will also inevitably lead to other development issues to the North/ North East of the town.
It is likely that Bexhill could become a magnet for Developers in the future and Rother Council need to be very clear as to how they propose to take the town forwards in a controlled manner, whilst protecting it's charm, environment and residents interests.
posted by Fi douglas on 25 Jan 2012 at 3:33 pm
What are they proposing for this development? I haven't heard anything about this yet! Oh no it doesn't sound promising though - I agree the traffic can be terrible around there already, and why make Little common bigger at all? There's already plenty of housing round about the village already.
I don't like the sound of this either.
When are they proposing to do this? Fi
posted by caroline on 26 Jan 2012 at 7:07 am
Local residents have already planned a meeting re the development on Saturday unfortunately I am unable to attend but will be emailed what was discussed. There is also a website being set up by residents regarding the matter. In the meantime Fi, if you go on http://www.barnhorngreen.com it shows you what they are looking to do and on there is a link abourt Marchfield Group the deveopers and if you go on their site you can see how big the site will be.
I believe there has been planning put forward twice before but rejected but apparently Rother are needing to put in more housing and Little Common was ideal. To them maybe but they will spoil what we have a beautiful quiet village which will have a knock on effect with everywhere as you said Cary with doctors, dentists etc and yes they will probably want to develop further.
posted by carolinee on 29 Jan 2012 at 4:20 pm
Hi Fi they are looking to put in 275 houses inc upto 4o% social housing, a school and industrial units which will ruin our little village. It will effect bexhill too as it will increase more traffic, unless they have their own doctor/dental surgeries they will need to register with our local ones which are full already. Little common and bexhill is a lovely area which is totally unspoilt. Where will they stop if this goes through, who knows it will end up like a big estate!! I am sure most people in Bexhill would agree this is why we all live here as it is so unspoit.
Apparently planning for this has been put forward twice before and been rejected. If it goes through it will be at least a year or two away.
posted by Fi on 06 Feb 2012 at 4:24 pm
thanks for the info - I'll have a look at the proposals.
How gutting - we just moved back down in October to Collington, and we love the lack of traffic/noise/crowds etc. I grew up in Little Common and it was a great place to live. what a terrible shame, I think this will ruin the village and it will certainly have a knock-on effect on Bexhill too.
the best points about Little Common and Bexhill is the unspoilt aspect of the town, as everyone else on this thread seems to agree.
Can't believe this has been agreed,
posted by Fi on 06 Feb 2012 at 4:32 pm
Hi, me again,
Was wondering if there is a petition against the development up and running, or if there is any action planned to show opposition to this development?
I'd certainly sign a petition if there is one,
posted by S T Ford on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:03 pm
The infrastructure for this development is non-existant. ESCC plans for removal of frontages on Barnhorn Road, traffic lights at Greyhorses is not an option without additional lanes. Re-aligning the bends and lane is already planned.
posted by caroline on 10 Feb 2012 at 8:56 pm
There is a meeting tomorrow morning at Little Common Community Centre and also on 25th February at 10.30am. We are going tomorrow so will let you know what is said etc. There does seem to be a lot of opposition but will know more after tomorrows meeting.
posted by Julie Bird on 11 Feb 2012 at 8:07 am
I also moved to Little Common to live in a village, as previous villages I lived in had the same thing happen to it, which took away the community spirit, crime rates went up, traffic and polution increased and the schools were so oversubscribed you couldnt get your kids into it. Little Common School is already probably the largest primary school in East Sussex with 3 classes per year. Where on earth will children from this new family go to school as there isnt any room to increase the size of Little Common school. Also whats all this nonsense about industrial units? We need more of those in Bexhill because?????? It seems to me that his is more about making money than it is to benefit the community or homeless. Afterall, if it was to house the homeless why not house them in Hastings where a large percentage of properties are actually empty!
posted by caroline on 13 Feb 2012 at 10:54 pm
Totally agree with you there Julie.
Went to the meeting on Saturday which had a fantastic turn out. It was basically just showing plans etc of what they intend to do and where. The meeting is repeated on 25th Feb 10.30-12am and is definitely worth popping along to as there is a chance to write down your thoughts on the matter and they are looking for support.
posted by Jack on 14 Feb 2012 at 12:47 pm
In the current 'green' climate many businesses want to 'put something back' into the community to protect and enhance biodiversity and to promote its enjoyment, to encourage wildlife, not to support irreparably destroying the landscape and biodiversity. This green belt is loved by the majority of residents. It is a delightful green space to look at and enjoy, and is home to a variety of rare wildlife. Businesses are only motivated by greed, that is why they opposed Tesco.
Clearly, the fragmentation of habitats by agriculture and the existing urbanisation highlights the need for retention of habitat networks, the continous linked areas of habitat providing people with an experience of nature on their doorstep. These are valuable features of the urban fringe are part of the local community.
The Council's ecologist or biodiversity / geodiversity officer can help the planning authority ensure that nature conservation becomes an integral part of all local authority decision making. yet this land is in the Core Strategy, it is difficult to envisage any input. Furthermore, the ESCC Landscape Information System contains details, inter alia, of countryside access landscape character and the LBAP is also a key source of data to identify and inform biodiversity priorities.
The community is supposed to be extensively involved throughout the Council's consultation process, yet there is no evidence of appropriate community involvement, the green belt is already in the Core Strategy. It's the same as the shelters. There has been a gross lack of transparency of all vital aspects, any development will be waived through.
The relevant parts of the Core Strategy document, including identifying coloured maps of specified alternative approved housing locations at the proposed Barnhorn Green and elsewhere Little Common, plus the Link Road area should be widely available free of charge. Not everyone has the internet, some people do not buy newspapers and other cannot afford ?25.00 for the Core Strategy document.
No infrastructure is in place, parking in the village is atrocious, the toilets, school and library facilities are inadequate. The road network is choked and there are still many health and safety hazards, pedstrians crossing Barnhorn Road to the village often take a chance.
posted by James on 15 Feb 2012 at 12:44 pm
Empty properties can lead to social, economic and environmental concerns, including creating eyesores, decreasing the value of neighbouring properties, contributing to the housing shortage and increasing pressure for housing development on Greenfield sites to meet housing demand. However, the government recently announced that it was making funding available to property owners to assist them in bringing empty properties back into use. Interest free loans are available through the Empty Property Loans Scheme. This initiative will bring empty properties back into use as lettings or on to the sales market. Why build new, its quicker to regenerate the older properties, even empty shops, who wants eyesores.
As for 40% social housing, how is this figure arrived at, what about affordability, in a stagnant market, there is provision for this under the Government initiative, but not with new housing, the local buy to let business sector will be cock-a-hoop. In reality, the figure for social housing is likely to be a much higher percentage, maybe 70%.
Industrial units? Again, on the green belt, not really on, is it, when there are plenty of alternative sites and old buildings to renovate. It is no good leaving sites empty for future projects, that in the current economic environment will not proceed for at least 10 to 15 years. Good case for Council Tax rebanding, subject to individual locations.
posted by Jason Brown on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:17 pm
I moved here in 2006 with my family I did not want my children growing up in London as I have we had been using Kloofs Caravan Park since 2000 and we had got to know the area well.
I cannot believe how it has changed over the past 6 years the care homes built at the end of Barnhorn road are 3 times the size of what was there but have been done in keeping with the local architecture.
To build a complete new development like they are proposing would be an absolute disgrace the area is at breaking point know Barnhorn Road traffic is bad at the moment and will get worse with the new bypass building this new estate will also put a great strain on the local amenities (Doctors, Phone exchange?s, water resources,) not to mention all the construction traffic that will be needed to build it.
IF THIS GOES AHEAD IT WILL RUIN WHAT WE ALL HAVE AND ENJOY
posted by Janet T4121curner on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:51 pm
It is only today 20th Feb that I have heard about this because I got a flyer through my door. So I have now taken my head out of the sand. I only moved to Lttle Common 7 years ago..for precisely the same reasons that everyone else has done. I have discovered the lovely Twittens through to the woodlands and fields. See foxes, rabbits, butterflies and birds...not to mention dodging a few cows on the way. Want to show my grandaughters. Do we need more houses? Maybe just a very few but certainly not a whole new estate...AND.. as I am a driver..NO traffic lights or access on the proposed stretch of the A259, it is bad enough at peak times already.
Industrial units? We already have empty ones. Wake up to the time zone. It is not the time to expand when all around is failure. Wait until the boom if you have to.
Signed ..HerInDoors..Cowdray park Road
posted by Fi Douglas on 21 Feb 2012 at 4:04 pm
thanks very much for all info posted in reply to my message.
I'm going to try and go on Feb 25th, as I'd like to add my opposition for what it's worth.
i csan't believe there can be many in favour of this surely?
posted by Jason brown on 22 Feb 2012 at 2:20 pm
There is already going to be a water shortage this year how will this help our local community Little Common will no longer be a village they will turn us into a town I really hope that we can stop this
posted by brian on 22 Feb 2012 at 5:46 pm
I have not seen the planning application, so dont know how far it has progressed.
It seems to me that the Highways Authority will have to reject the application, as the amount of traffic it will add to the A259 will exceed by far the mandatory traffic directives laid down in the appropriate DMRB manuals. These directives are available from the Highways web site.
The A259 between Hastings and Eastbourne has been declared the most dangerous streth of road in East Sussex by the European Highways Safety Commission.
posted by Fi Douglas on 23 Feb 2012 at 2:40 pm
I'm unable to attend the meeting on Saturday after all as I'm not going to be in the area, so I was wondering if anyone who is going, would be happy to post some basic info on this board about what was said?
I'm really disappointed not to be able to go,
posted by caroline on 23 Feb 2012 at 5:12 pm
I am so pleased i started this thread on the message board and that everyone that has commented is of the same view as myself.
I did a leaflet drop yesterday and the people i spoke to were also very against the development. I found out by chance through a friend and have been mentioning it to everyone i speak to incase they too are unaware.
It really is worth popping in on Sat as you can see what they are plannning to do and also fill out a questionnaire form alongside with your views on the development.
posted by Jason Brown on 23 Feb 2012 at 10:25 pm
Can some one please post a link to the meeting this Saturday as I have lost my leaflet and am not sure of time and place I would appreciate it very much
Listen Up Barnhorn Green!!
posted by Nicola on 24 Feb 2012 at 7:58 pm
Well, having been to the exhibition i too am absolutely staggered that there was even a proposal..it is utter madness..the people don't want it, the roads can't take it, the schools are full, as are the doctors & dentists. If anywhere should have been developed it's the old Northeye site, but now i hear rumblings that a supermarket has bought it..more traffic mayhem.When i questioned how a greenfield site can be wantonly changed to development i was told that Rother had to put in 4000 new homes & we were a target area along with a site in Sidley..it seems nothing is safe from the greed of developers & councils. We have a beautiful village which this development will ruin..i was also told they wanted the 'green' approach..that of new residents walking to the village even though they've put a bus route through..sounds more & more like an estate doesn't it..truly awful.I suggest all those living on the perimeter,particularly The Broadwalk, get their houses valued now, then if this atrocity goes ahead, get them revalued & sue Barnhorn Green for the difference. We'll keep our green fields & wildlife thanks all the same.
Make Your Objections Known
posted by Fi Douglas on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:44 pm
I got a newsletter through the door recently, and part of the letter is about the proposed development.
It invites people to make their views known and the person to address opinions to is:
I found it very satisfying to let him know exactly what I think of this stupid proposal!
posted by brian on 25 Feb 2012 at 10:37 am
Since the New Development (ND) will have to connect to a junction with the A259 at some point, the following might be of interest. The figures are my estimate, but can be verified or collected by members of the action group.
Passing traffic flow at the junction with the A259 between the hours of 7am and 5pm probably exceeds 25 per minute, (when it is not stationary).
ND when fully occupied will possibly generate in excess of 1,000 traffic movements requiring access to the A259 during the same period, (2 per minute during peak periods). This traffic is known as ?turning traffic? as it needs to turn in order to join or leave the A259 at this junction, thereby interrupting the flow of passing traffic, adding to congestion of the A259.
Any traffic trying to access the A259 from ND by now will have formed a considerable queue. Residents of the A259 will confirm it can often take between 5 and 10 minutes to
Join the A259 from their driveway at this time of day. This could equate to a wait in excess of an hour for people at the back of the queue.
What we have here surely is a prison camp where residents will neither be able to use their vehicles to go about their daily business, nor be accessed by visitors, delivery vehicles, rubbish collections etc.
The department of transport lays down mandatory provisions for the compliance of existing or construction of new such junctions, these have to be implemented by the Highways Agency. They are laid down in a series of volumes known as Design Manuals for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).
DMRB Vol6 Sect2 Part7 TD41/95 chap2 covers all aspects of the requirements for such a junction. There is no existing junction that complies with the needs of ND, so in theory the Highways Agency will have to oppose the application when it is submitted.
posted by Peter on 01 Mar 2012 at 1:26 pm
Potential buyers will be constrained by tight credit conditions, this is one reason why whole estates are being built to rent. Croydon Council rents property in St. Leonards to house the homeless. Other London Council's are also planning to house outside London where rents are cheaper. Is Barnhorn Green social housing to house local people or the London overflow and how could it be controlled? Either way it will most likely plug gaps in the Council's finances after the government cuts. Not enough informstion is in the public realm, how about some transparency on from the local Council on Barnhorn Green and the new welfare reforms. The Core Strategy pre-dates the present government.
Government reward's Councils by match funding council tax on new houses plus you've got it, for six years and promotes council house sales to fund more houses - after the discount? How, it does not add up, but it is government policy. Tampering with the housing market is not growth, nor is the Council disinterested.
On top of all this, the stock market will inevitably crash, being liquidity fueled by the MPC stimulus. The result will be worse than 2008, so I guess we are looking at a 100% rental estate.
Lets hope common sense prevails and the local lunatics are sent to Coventry.
Barnhorn Green Estate
posted by Nocole on 05 Mar 2012 at 1:25 pm
Hi, the green belt should be looked after for future generations, not desecrated.
If planning permission is approved, it won't be the end of the world, but the end of the village and a pain in the bum for motorists on the A259 and local roads, it doesn't take an imbecile to understand this.
Unfortunately, the cullture of planning governance appears aligned to serving the interests of owners, developers and Council's, rather than objectors. No development is wanted, yet this estate has been presented as a fait accompli, green belt land was secretly put in the Core Strategy without informing the public at the appropriate time. What is the link between Marchfield Group and Rother District Council? There is no significant information and transparency as is the case in open government. Is this not a matter within the localism legislation? Why build an estate when so many properties are standing unoccupied?
posted by Helen on 05 Mar 2012 at 1:38 pm
Hello, the key thing to know is the school provision, whether it is being increased in unison with completion of the estate and the cash position of the Council allocated to this large development. There seems to be a small army of people promoting the estate and possibly sweeping bad news under the carpet - nothing is definite on school provision, doctors, dentists, shops. An estate of the quoted size will need its own facilities in place, again in unison with school provision, including industrial units to develop sustainable business operations for the workers.
Electric car pools is the only sensible way to reduce traffic congestion on the A259 and sufficient industrial units to create the projected number of sustainable jobs for the residents.
Barnhorn Green Council Estate
posted by Julia on 08 Mar 2012 at 12:55 pm
This huge proposal on the green belt off Sandhurst Lane for both sides of Barnhorn Road is stupid. There is no appropriate infrastructure. Transparency is needed pronto, let local people see public risk assessments for the A259. These are certain to emphasis, the need for provision of more safer crossing points for all and the volume of traffic use.
Industrial units is plain crazy, where is the demand? Workspace may be needed, for instance, architects to computer companies to employment agencies needing small business premises that would back onto their homes, but not commercial premises. This type of provision could be provided in the depressed Sackville area.
If the link road is built between King Offer Road and Kingsway, this will release that land for planning. There is also the land east of Pevensey towards Cooden in the core strategy.
posted by Davina on 09 Mar 2012 at 1:20 pm
Barnhorn Green is a unique and special place. All of us in Bexhill should be very proud that such sites have been successfully protected open to all. inevitably, as Hastings and Eastbourne have grown, so have the levels of traffic. The growing amount of traffic, in particular on the A259 is having serious adverse effects on the fabric of Little Common, which is especially vulnerable to fragmentation, noise and pollution. Once small lanes around the village are now major highways which with increased housing, act to sever its landscape, damage its wildlife habitats and spoil visitors enjoyment of its tranquility and open space. To help protect this special environment the local authority need to consider changes to how they meet the areas housing needs without increasing congestion. This initially can be done, in this decade of austerity through the existing public and private asset stock.
BG & Northeye
posted by Jack on 13 Mar 2012 at 11:51 am
Northeye is unique, part of the history of Little Common and Crown owned, if it ever becomes available, this could be a safe, interesting and peaceful public open space with prison history and wildlife value - it is a heritage site.
There is enormous potential to transform Northeye into a visitor attraction and education resource, providing good access and interpretative displays and facilities for informal recreation. I would expect strong expressions of interest from the Borough Council supported by local historians.
posted by Onlooker on 16 Mar 2012 at 10:03 am
The contributions to this thread seem mainly passive. Plenty of we don?t want it, but nothing from the action group, how do we stop it?
The action group have started a web site but as yet it contains no content.
I read somewhere they anticipate expensive legal fees. I don?t see why.
It must be obvious that this development has little success of being approved.
(Has an application been submitted yet?)
The biggest asset the action group has is the traffic flow and congestion of the A259.
A few years ago an application to develop retirement homes for the elderly was turned down on the same grounds.
After the application has been submitted it will be subject to comment by various authorities such as Police, Emergency services, Utility companies and the Highways agency. In view of the size of the development, the Highways Agency ought to
reject it, based on criteria laid down by Department of Transport in Mandatory ?Traffic directives?. Failure of the Highways Agency to reject the application can only (in my opinion) be the result an accidentally overlooked or misinterpreted TD, or the use of out of date data such as traffic flows. Should this most unlikely event occur then the Action group (provided they have themselves collected the appropriate traffic flow data) should be able to indicate where an error may have occurred and have the decision reversed.
Remember our MP can present a petition containing genuine factual data to the Transport Minister for consideration.
Any appeal against any rejection by an authority will almost certainly be rejected by the appeals inspector.
Mr Or Mrs 'Onlooker'
posted by Joanne on 17 Mar 2012 at 5:29 pm
How fantastic to see that an 'onlooker' with no name (message posted 16 March 2012), is knowledgeable enough to say "It must be obvious that this development has little sucess of being approved" and "Any appeal against any rejection by an authority will almost certainly be rejected by the appeals inspector".
May I suggest that, instead of using this forum to tell the 'action group' what they should be doing, the 'onlooker' join forces with the group and use his or her obvious expertise in a more productive way.
posted by Mr Onlooker on 19 Mar 2012 at 5:21 pm
May I suggest that, instead of using this forum to tell the 'action
group' what they should be doing, the 'onlooker' join forces with
the group and use his or her obvious expertise in a more productive
The action group has a half constructed web site with no contact point.
There was a leaflet drop through my door, again with no point of contact.
I see no entries on this message board from any action group member.
How do we contact them even if we wanted to?
posted by Deborah on 19 Mar 2012 at 10:48 pm
Having read the various comment's there will always be those Against and those for.
I note the mention of Schools and Dr's being requested. I would have to agree with that.
However many of you mention the charming Village life, We have some wonderful independent shops here, and yet most of you are guilty of shopping at the larger super markets. These wonderful People whom own or rent the local shops, give up so much time and effort to serve the local community, need Income in order to survive.
As i see it, Barnhorn Green will be built, eventually one way or the other. So instead of stamping your feet, try some positive input, for a change. After all It's your Village.
Barnhorn Green In Response To Onlooker 16 And 19 March
posted by Linda Hallett on 20 Mar 2012 at 5:46 pm
Thank you for comments, and I respond as Chair of the Residents Action Group ?Say No 2 Barnhorn Green?. A planning application has not yet been submitted and our Group, which is made up of volunteers from many of the affected roads, (many of who work full-time), anticipate that the developers may wait for the decision on the Link Road expected in April.
Yes, the land on which they propose to build is outside of the current Local Development Plan, however Rother District Council?s ?Proposed Submission Core Strategy? dated August 2011, yet to be adopted, already identifies the land South and North of Barnhorn Road as being a ?'Potential Broad Location for Further Development', and the addendum to this document sets out the Total Housing Requirement for Bexhill between 2011 ? 2028 as being 2025 ? 2028 houses.
We recognise and agree about the potential increase in traffic along the A259 Barnhorn Road, but also the impact on the roundabout and surrounding access roads, parking and the safety of pedestrians and road users. We also consider that there would be a detrimental impact on Little Common Village in terms of parking and therefore access to shops and services, as well as putting additional strain on our existing village facilities.
With the imminent changes to the Local Plan, together with the changing national picture on housing, there is every liklihood that there would be an appeal and even a public enquiry. Having taken stock of advice from other campaign groups, we consider it wise, even essential, to fundraise sufficient monies to be in a position to obtain legal advice and technical experts at any appeal or public enquiry stage.
The purpose of our leaflet drop was to stimulate local residents to come and meet us on 11 and 25 February and from this we have already started to build-up a group of supporter that we intend to keep in touch with either through our website, by email or in person. As volunteers we are looking for even more supporters to take an active part in our campaign to carry out research topics, fundraise, leaflet drop, etc.
Our website will soon be up and running, however in the mean time you can reach us on firstname.lastname@example.org or come along to our next public meeting at 9.30 am for a 10.00 am start on Saturday 31 March at the Community Hall (adjacent to the Primary School) in Little Common. We look forward to meeting as many as possible on 31 March when we will be sharing some of our thoughts and findings with the audience, and taking account of comments, suggestions and useful ideas that we can build into our campaign.
posted by DW on 22 Mar 2012 at 12:51 pm
I am shocked and dismayed at the off the rails response to the 'Onlooker' who merely sought to helpfully contribute - what will carry weight.
There has been significant criticism and searchers on this site and http://www.barnhorngreen.com, must be aware by now of the lack of information from the action group. If the action group is to remain non communicative, i trust they will consider the implicatiobns of isolating the local community.
We Can But Hope
posted by Waiting Game on 22 Mar 2012 at 1:31 pm
Well done 'onlooker', I and many others (estimated around 50 local people) left name and address at the original meeting, held in St. Peter's Community Centre, Bexhill on Thursday 15th September, 2011, however, no one has sought to enlist my help and support.
I am most concerned that no steps appear yet to have been taken towards contacting those who attended, to help the action group fulfil its intended function. There was, quite obviously, a wealth of experience and knowledge in the hall.
posted by Louise on 22 Mar 2012 at 4:07 pm
I believe everybody has the right to their own opinion but I also believe that the action group has been very informative and considering they are volunteers have done there utmost to keep the residents informed. No planning application has been made as yet but no doubt will happen soon. The campaign group has certainly raised awareness and anybody against the development should offer their help, advice and time to them.
posted by Pat Hicks on 23 Mar 2012 at 11:18 am
I applaud Linda Hallett for her informative response to questions posed by unidentified persons.
I look forward to seeing all at the meeting on 31.03.12 and congratulations to the web page makers of http://www.sayno2barnhorngreen.com a good professional job!
Independent Village Shops
posted by Robbed Pensioners on 24 Mar 2012 at 12:52 pm
If Barnhorn Green is built, the village and immediate counntryside will cease to exist, this is one of the basic issues and a reason why people move here.
Residents do shop frequently in the village, why do you think Tesco wanted to come, but for wider personal choice, variety and in this age of austerity, car and shopping sharing, it is far cheaper to do the main shop either at the large supermarkets or a combination of cash and carry.
Just to exist we all have to look for the cheapest prices, keep our old cars and count our money to pay the bills. We are not stamping our feet, but voting positively, fighting for what we saved and scrimped for when wages were much lower. We are not guilty of anything, this is OFFENSIVE, we like everyone else have to face reality.
The budget is bad news for independent shops and small business, him, that Plonker of the first order, having screwed up North Sea oil last year with tax increases and mistrust, he's now realised he got it wrong and provided field allowances to encourage investment and extended tax allowances. Again, he's restored cuts to science funding having cut 50% in 2010. This year, he's screwed up the pensioners age linked allowance. So, we pensioners will have to cut our coat according to our cloth.
As for Barnhorn Green, we support the 'onlooker', he/she has got it spot on. Barnhorn Green need never be build, it will never be built, listen to the 'onlooker'. Now that the link road is to be built, it is more likely/sensible to submit a planning application for that area and it was said at the meeting at St Peter's Community Centre that if the link road was built, that is where the houses would be built.
It may well be that the village will suffer in the coming years, but we have no doubt it will continue to receive support from the community. People interests don't just lie in Little Common, they would not be living if they never went anywhere else.
posted by A local consumer on 26 Mar 2012 at 11:31 am
Some good people have drawn my attention to this site. And looking at the key poster, may I remind the independent shops that they had the support of the local residents against the Tesco planning application company, now as I see it, is payback time. It's such a pity to see snide remarks 'most of you are guilty of shopping at the larger supermarkets' and 'stamping your feet', How rude! Are you not bothered about the adverse impact on your environment, its services and its highways?
Barnhorn Planning Application
posted by Well-meaning on 26 Mar 2012 at 11:55 am
If a planning application is submitted for Barnhorn Green and the Local Planning Authorities decision is sound, the planning application should never be taken to Appeal. However, if the developer is not in a hurry, they have little to lose and much to gain by trying it on through the Appeal process to try to get a permission which has been refused. The chances of success at Appeal will depend entirely on the case presented and on its planning merits, nothing else.
Any Appeal can be decided under the written evidence procedure alone. The written method of decifding Appeals is often preferred, it is faster and cheaper. If the action group gets into a Public Enquiry Appeal, they might need a solicitor, but it is not essential, someone with experience of Appeals and advocacy, who has the time available to be able to make a full commitment could instinctively deal with this matter. Remember, it is not just the cost of the solicitor, if counsel's opinion is sought and counsel instructed for the Appeal, and this is usually the case, you are possibly looking at a five figure sum up front.
Opinion, if the developer is in a hurry, they will aim for the link road sites, time is money. This may be why the application has been held back.
Beware, any new housing, will set a precedent for more housing, the developer will place some reliance on this fact.
posted by Sarah Errington on 26 Mar 2012 at 1:31 pm
First, I totally agree with all of Linda Hallett's post.
Waiting Game - the meeting on 15 September 2011 was not organised by the sayno2barnhorn green residents action group. We didnt form until late January 2012. Please could you repost with more details about this meeting if it is now relevant to this debate. I think it could have been about the link road?
Onlooker - as for not putting names and contact details on our invitation leaflets to the drop ins on 11 and 25 February, we thought long and hard about it. However,with 1500 leaflets having being delivered the risk was that most answer machines cut out after 10 messages have been left, so it couldnt even deal with a 1% telephone response rate. You also have to consider that the action group is made up of volunteers. Many of them are working either full or part time. Those who dont work are on the whole involved in other voluntary work. We would therefore not be able to sit at home waiting for your call. Finally, we would not want to put ourselves or our families in the firing line for any unpleasant message, anonymous or otherwise that could be left. Onlooker - you dont put your name on your posts, why should I give you my email address or phone number?
posted by DR on 27 Mar 2012 at 2:35 pm
Some of the comments on this thread are harsh and seem to forget that we ALL don't want this development to happen. I attended one of the sayno2barnhorngreen meetings and I found it well informed and informative.
There is no application at present so lets all take a breath and use what we have to prepare. I am sure Onlooker means well and there is no doubt that traffic could be the 'silver bullet' to kill this development.
So Onlooker - offer your undoubted expertise and join in. We all have so much else to do in our lives lets not lose sight of our objective here.
Also should we not make clear that within RDC there are plenty of other sites around the area that can take new housing?
Two Meetings Same Time
posted by Eileen Smith on 27 Mar 2012 at 3:45 pm
I don't know if your aware of Bexhill Alliance's meeting in Parkhurst Hall.Same time as yours. Wouldn't it be great if all the little groups in the S/E got together to form one large group to protect our green belt,Imagine the people power.Driving around you see more and more farm land disappearing.
As well as, if no rain by April, a hose pipe ban to be imposed on us. No local people ever benifit from these developments.
Eileen & Peter.
Amendment To Meeting Time
posted by Linda Hallett on 29 Mar 2012 at 10:13 am
Just to let you know that we have amended the start time for our next public meeting on Saturday 31 March to be 10.00 am - 11.30 am (rather than 9.30 am). This is another awareness-raising session to reach those supporters that we have not yet spoken to. Our volunteers have delivered leaftlets further afield this time, so if you have come along before, you are of course welcome, however we are hoping to attract people that are not yet aware of the proposal. It is good to see all of the debate, however let's try and remember to be kind to each other with our comments. I think we all have the same good intentions. If anyone reading this feels that they have more to offer in terms of active campaigning, please come along on Saturday and make yourselves known to me, or email us on email@example.com
posted by Linda Wheeler on 29 Mar 2012 at 2:12 pm
Just wanted to extend thanks to Linda Hallett and the rest of the 'Say No to Barnhorn Green' committee for their unstinting commitment over the last few months. Thank you all for fighting 'our corner'
posted by Waiting Game Response to Sarah Errington on 30 Mar 2012 at 12:20 pm
The meeting held at St. Peter's Community Centre on 15th September 2011, organised by the three independent councillors and detailed in St. Mark's Ward News Letter - August last, was about the huge planning proposals off Barnhorn Road and the "Core Strategy", a document which had gone right through consultation, individual(s), were to seek extension of time to comment. Propsals have been in the Local Development Plan for several years and have now been put into the "Core Strategy". However, if the link road is built, this will release land for planning and the houses can be built in that area. Sidley and both sides of Barnhorn Road is in the "Core Strategy", also Pevensey.
Now that the government have approved the link road, it certainly looks more desirable to submit a planning application for Sidley or thereabouts. There will, of course, be a huge infrastructure problem to be resolved and in the absence of viable alterntives brownfield sites or within and improving existing housing, loss of green belt.
posted by brian on 18 Apr 2012 at 9:46 am
Now that the Website has finally been completed, let me add my congratulations for an excellent product.
Since the comments are limited to 300 letters, I hope these comments of mine will be read and of interest to members of the action group.
Let me also offer some observations of my own.
1. Now that the link road has been approved, any development opportunity would sensibly be directed in that direction.
2. If planning application is eventually submitted for Barnhorn Green based on the proposal outlined on this website there is every chance that it would be rejected by the planning committee, failing that then the Highways Agency.
3. The proposed access to the A259 is to demolish no 116 and create a new access at this point (possibly traffic light controlled).
4. Since 116 already has its own access to the A259, generating a predictable amount of turning traffic, the new access will be considered an ?altered? access as opposed to a ?new? access, and will not meet the criteria of TD 41/95 2.10. This should automatically be grounds for rejection by the Highways Agency.
5. Should the Highways Agency fail to reject the application, the Ministry of Transport can be approached by our MP pointing out the provisions of TD 41/95 not being fully implemented.
6. Any appeal against rejection as a result of failing to comply with Mandatory Traffic Directives would almost certainly fail.
7. I am encouraged to hope that the proposed Barnhorn Green development will not become a reality.
Say No To Barnhorn Development
posted by Bernie Randall on 29 May 2012 at 5:33 pm
As a local taxi driver and resident I use Barnhorn Road quite a lot. I am surprised the way it has developed over the years that there are not a lot more accidents than there already are. The A259 has been designated the most dangerous road on the south coast, now there are plans ahead to build further housing in the area making the road more densly used than it already is. What with that and the developement of the new link road across The Coomb Haven Valley Barnhorn Road is going to become a bottle neck and a death trap. If anyone has tried to drive along The Ridge at peak times to get to the conquest Hospital you know what I am talking about. With new traffic on the so called Llink road - traffic from Hastings now traffic from the new barnhorn developement I am moving house as I value my life. Which is obvious the powers that be in Rother dont.
posted by Pete Driver on 01 Jun 2012 at 5:47 pm
Why do we always have to oppose development. Would we be as fanatical about a similar development in . . let us say. . Wisbeach in Cambridgeshire? No. . we would not care a bit. It is only because this proposal is in our back yard. . . Yes we are NIMBY!! Come on let us grow our town, let us create jobs, let us provide homes for our kids. . . PLEASE!
Not All Bad News.
posted by Mrs Thompson on 06 Jun 2012 at 11:22 am
If the building plans go ahead its not all bad as it will create jobs that are so needed.New homes for fist time buyers,and homes for people that social housing.We a all human and should learn to live side by side.This will happen so just except and be more kinder to our fellow kind.
posted by Charlotte on 13 Jun 2012 at 3:57 pm
I am for the development. I've lived and worked here all my life and I feel it's what is needed to help myself and plenty other people like me. Alot of people are against as you feel it will ruin your village but isn't that a bit of a selfish view to take " your village " could also be that special place and home for many other people not just yourselfs. I have lived here and worked here all my life and can not afford the deposit to buy my own home so this development could help 1st time buyers like myself. Just imagine if you were to be in same situation wouldn't you like to be given a chance? Why should it happen everywhere else but not in little common?
posted by caroline on 14 Jun 2012 at 10:38 am
whilst i can appreciate the last few comments. I think you are missing the point. Little common is a village and this is why we moved here. The traffic is bad enough as it is along Barnhorn Green and will only get worse.
We will loose our village and these developers wont stop there they will purchase other land in the area and it will end up like a big estate.
We moved from an area that was once like Little Common and this is exactly what happened there and it has been spoilt hence why we moved.
Living In Little Common
posted by Eira on 17 Jun 2012 at 9:21 am
In respect of the last three comments, to expect an established community to compromise on the very attributes which attracted them to live in this area is also a selfish expectation. This developement will not only affect the present residents but also the future inhabitants, young families and their children. Besides increasing the burden on existing infrastructure it will change the character of Little Common area. The proposals will alter the demographic environment. A profoundly relevant objection has already been cited, the irreparable damage to the countryside, which will impact on generations to come. Acceptable to all or not the situation is such that the area is occupied predominantly by the retired, a fact that should not be ignored in the considerations of any grand scale proposals. Small groups of housing on available plots can be assimilated comfortably but uncompromising large estates would prove detrimental. It is also worth bearing in mind this is not an altruistic venture by the developers.
posted by Charlotte on 19 Jun 2012 at 5:58 pm
I understand all your points but the fact is that there is growing need for housing and it will continue to grow so you say about the next generation but if all these new developments get vetoed then where is next generation going to live? because if the villages stay untouched and they continue to expand on already over crowded towns cities then eventually they will run out of space and wont be able house any more so in turn it will encroache on villages like little common.
posted by Gary B on 25 Jun 2012 at 10:55 am
I have to say I have been hesitant to make any contribution to this discussion through fear of beiong shouted down by the opposition group. Hearing he view of Mrs Thompson, Pete and Charlotte has enboldened me to 'speak up'.
I am Little Common born and bred but approximately ten years ago I had to move out of the village as I was unable to afford a family house to meet my needs in the locality. New housing of the sorts that I saw at the Barnhorn Green exhibition would absolutely serve the need for families like mine and would probably enable me and my family to move back into Little Common to be nearer to our extended family. I would ask the Say No 2 Barnhorn Green group to stop giving the impression that they speak on behalf of 'all' of the local community and take a more practical approach to this proposal - accepting that there is support in the community and acknowledge that there are positive aspects to the development.
posted by John on 25 Jun 2012 at 1:31 pm
This Thread 'debate' has highlighted the best and worst of the residents of Bexhill. An indisputable fact is that Bexhill needs more affordable homes, for our older residents, young families and people who cant get on the housing ladder without a hand up. So this issue affects all of us. It is not good enough to be NIMBY. The fact is that if every community within Bexhill accepted a share of what is needed, the problem of provision of housing would be on the way to being solved and every community would benefit. We also must stop stigmatising people who need affordable housing as scroungers or benefit cheats. We are not! We are your friends, family and neighbours.
posted by Charlotte on 27 Jun 2012 at 4:19 pm
Gary I'm glad you decided to have your say and John. I hope it will get many other people for the development to speak up. Were all human and with everything going on with the country at the moment, cuts, rises in just about everything we should be pulling together and making sure the places we live and surrounding areas get by, and developments like these could bring well needed homes and business. Which in turn will help us all. If you keep saying no to developments like this then they will be forced else where and so will business and the few shops you have in little common how will they continue with no custom? So please not just see this as ruining " your village " but look at good it can do for many many people
posted by Louise on 03 Jul 2012 at 12:52 pm
I am not against development of housing if sited on existing brown fields and dilapidated building site. To keep using green fields (a cheaper alternative for the developers) is unacceptable though. To increase traffic on roads which are just not able to carry any more traffic (no matter how many zebra crossing, traffic lights are added) is a disgrace and unacceptable. This development will definitely take away the Village character. Services will not be able to cope. Water, sewerage, doctors, public transport. So please encourage usage of existing sites, reclaim dilapidated and neglected buildings. Leave green fields alone. 'Don't pave paradise and create building plots. You don't know what you've got til it's gone.'
posted by Adrian on 16 Jul 2012 at 12:24 pm
We live in this area because of the green fields and relatively peaceful atmosphere.
What gives a cheeky developer the right to muscle in to make a fast buck to the detriment of those living here.
Barnhorn Green - This Will Affect You!
posted by Sarah Errington on 05 Nov 2012 at 10:29 am
Just to remind those of you who dont know, planning permission is now in for a development in Little Common which will comprise 275 houses, industrial units, a school, a doctors surgery, a nursing home. There is just ONE entrance/exit onto the development.....just passed the Greyhorses flats on the A259 heading towards Eastbourne. The impact of this will be felt throughout the village and Bexhill. Planning reference: RR2012/1978/P. You can look at it on line or at the Town Hall. Please have a look now. It will be too late when you are sitting in a queue of traffic haeding towards Eastbourne or coming back towards Bexhill to wish you had shown your opposition. Thanks for reading.
Barnhorn Green - Update
posted by David Nattress on 14 Nov 2012 at 7:47 pm
To all of you who have kindly posted your opposition to this proposed development over the last few months. The time to submit your FORMAL letters of objection to the planning application submitted recently is NOW. You only have another few days. Please look for guidance and advice as to how to present your letters on http://www.sayno2barnhorngreen.com. Please also register as supporters to receive latest bulletins and news. Planning application number is RR/2012/1978P
Barnhorn Green - Latest
posted by David Nattress on 18 Nov 2012 at 5:29 pm
FURTHER UPDATE - To all who wish to submit FORMAL letters of objection and opposition to the planning application for this proposed development, you only have until NOVEMBER 30TH 2012 to get your letters to the Rother District Council Planning Department. Refer to planning application number RR/2012/1978P. Look on our website for advice on material, (valid) reasons for raising your objections - http://www.sayno2barnhorngreen.com.
posted by dave on 25 Nov 2012 at 3:11 pm
At the end of the day if there is no new development and infrastructure built into a community then that community will die, Im sure there were huge objections to the development all along Birkdale when that was all farm land and off of pear tree lane etc,Im sure that most of the people complaining about this latest development live in or close to one of those areas,expansion is necessary to survive, however on that note, just having the one entrance seems a little odd, there should always be a minimum of 2 access points. for fire safety etc.
posted by Michael on 03 Dec 2012 at 12:00 pm
I'll tell you how this development will change Little Common because I experienced exactly the same type of development in a similar size village in Sussex. Traffic will be an issue it is now and it will get worse, straightening a road in a 30mph will solve nothing.The bypass is not fit for purpose and traffic lights will slow things up(Like the Polgate fiasco) even more. Parking in the village will be horrendous because we have one small car park maxed out now.Teenagers will roam the streets at night fueled by alcohol with nothing to to do but cause social issues, because there is nothing for them to do.Where do they think all the cars dropping off at the two schools are going to go? Everywhere and anywhere that's where.The Doctors is maxed out I have go into Bexhill for both Dr's & Dentist.The developers say this will mean new life for Little Common I wasn't aware we were on the endangered list,I do not recall any local meeting pleading for new life in the village, try Hastings that needs new life.This is all about R.D.C meeting targets and developers making money, residents are an irritation to them, show me one resident who has asked for this new life to be delivered here.Little common is not a business district but a retirement area with a mix of young family's, job creation will be short term while the project goes ahead. Working people will need to commute, so more traffic.Long term unemployment will go up in the area,Daily Telegraph statics 160,000 companies in the UK are only able to pay the interest on their debt, but not the debt itself, creditors are losing almost £5bn PA.So what business want's to start up in Little Common and who's going to finance them ? It's the big bully District Councils pushing through Ill thought out schemes with little in the way of infrastructure investment treading on the little people.
PS I'll be moving away if this goes ahead.
posted by David Nattress on 06 Dec 2012 at 8:46 pm
Michael, Absolutely spot-on. You've hit most of the nails bang on the head - well done.
Please feel free to write a formal letter of objection to RDC - you have some time yet. Use the http://www.sayno2barnhorngreen.com website for any extra guidance you may need. This said, you already are up and running on this.
posted by Rod Clifton on 19 Dec 2012 at 9:58 pm
I know I don't live in Little Common, but was born and raised in Sidley and Bexhill, and in my twenties spent many happy hours there and in the Wheatsheaf where my ex-wife worked. I now live in Burwash and have raised a family and now have grandchildren here. Burwash has change markedly since I moved here 23 years ago, I understand things have to change. Michael, don't know if you have children, my children used to roam the streets but not with mischief or malice in mind. I know many of the young people in my community, and few are trouble. To my mind, you have two options, try to understand and help young people, or carry out your PS.
posted by dave on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:49 pm
Progress is needed, just think of it this way, if nothing had changed little common would be a pub a stables and a pond, north eye would still be surrounded by barbed wire from the war.and you wouldnt be living there in the first place because no new houses would have been built, time stands still for no man,so get with it look at the positives,just think someone may move into one of the new houses that might turn out to be a new best mate/drinking buddy/bowling/cricket buddy what ever,just remember as long as you have your health not much else matters.developers don't really care to much about local opinion, think of this , if it was you that stood to make millions out of the development would you think differently about it.
Add a follow-up message