|
| What is the Hastings Alliance? |
| Join us |
| Make a donation |
| Combe Haven Valley |
| The arguments |
| Timetable |
| Supporters |
| Pictures |
| Further resources |
Over 1800 objections to the proposed road
Since the start of the official objection period on 25th May 2007, the County Council has counted 1,854 objections to the proposed link road, 49 expressions of support, and 8 "other". Council staff are still working their way through the flood of objections and preparing a report for the Council. You can read some of the objections here. The following is just a selection of the hundreds and hundreds of objections from members of the public that have been submitted through this web site.
I am writing to register my objection to the above application. I ask that this application be turned down primarily due to its likely impacts on biodiversity. The construction of this road would contravene planning law and policy. Roads can directly remove habitats and interfere with water quality and hydrology of wetlands. Roads are known to reduce the densities of breeding birds (e.g. Reijnen, et al. 1997).
If built, this road would directly impact Combe Haven Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the largest reedbed in Sussex, which is recognised as being of national importance for its nature conservation interest. Any new road here is likely to increase water pollution and disrupt the hydrology within this sensitive wetland. It is likely to disturb uncommon breeding birds including some that are specially protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), for example the Cetti's warbler. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) creates a duty for every public authority to conserve biodiversity. The Act applies to County Councils, District Councils and Parish Councils. The Duty is created by Section 40 (1) of the Act.
I am writing to object to this planning application, and ask that this letter be placed before Members of the Planning Committee as they consider the application. My reasons for objecting are: 1. Oil reserves are much smaller than published by OPEC and BP so oil will run out soon making the road pointless. My source for this is Danny Clark Lowes, an oil exploration geologist and contemporary at Cambridge University who lectures widely on the subject of "reserve exaggeration" 2. It will encourage increased economically useless journeys including through journeys thereby increasing CO2 emissions and contributing to global warming/climate change. You are required to reduce emissions. 3. The increased through traffic treating the new road as a bypass will overload The Ridge for local traffic necessitating another link road to the east of Hastings. In the meantime local journeys will be paralysed. Once we have a complete bypass the link roads that form this bypass will produce enormous increase in through traffic paralysing the new roads for locals and increasing emissions. The east bypass will threaten an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 4. We need improved public transport between Bexhill and Hastings " trains, buses and directly routed cycle ways. The proposed cycleways along the link route are pointless as cyclists will always choose the most direct, flattest, most picturesque route which is along the coast. The money should be spent on public transport on existing roads not the new road. 5. We do not need new housing developments and if we did we do not need the new road to serve them. We need to improve the quality of housing in existing developed areas so that economically useful people want to live in them. 6. The road would contribute to the destruction of an outstandingly beautiful area. 7. Nationally our road congestion problem needs a new system of taxation
which discourages economically useless journeys, and national policies which
encourage movement of population to the north from the increasingly crowded
south of England. Compared with this the new road is sticking plaster to the
problem and ill conceived sticking plaster at that.
I am writing to register my strong objection to the above application. I ask
that this application be turned down because the scheme will compromise an AONB
in a heavily threatened part of SE England. Hastings and Bexhill Council are
duty bound to produce a serious, well thought out, sustainable transport policy
for the area
I am writing to voice my strong objections to the Hastings/Bexhill link road. It will destroy the lovely Combe Haven valley, the name says it all. A haven for wildlife and landscape will be ruined and future generations will not thank you for that. The numbers of vehicles being introduced into a previously virgin area is obscene and Government guidance on alternative strategies has been ignored. Additional CO2 will be generated, all against Government policy. In my own area, the A1474 ring road was built to relieve congestion. It has done none of it. The traffic has merely been moved from one area to another and got worse because the main problem of road congestion has not been addressed. Please take my concerns into account in your decision making process and
notify me of the outcome.
I strongly object to building a new road to link Bexhill and Hastings: - it flies in the face of the obvious unsustainability of increased road use and traffic and its contribution to global warming. I can't believe it complies with national policy on this. If it does, our children are facing a ruined world. - the full socio-economic benefits are not evident. - no proper investment has been made in public transport development in East Sussex on the scale of the county's road-building programme - it will destroy a beautiful bit of countryside, and pollute a very wide area, for ever - an irreversible degradation of the East Sussex environment. - it's absurd that it's claimed to be essential for housing development. Better bus and rail services ARE essential. Please don't go ahead with this daft, cruel proposal.
Please, please don't do this until you have thoroughly exhausted all other possibilities. Once this beautiful valley is destroyed it will be gone forever!
I am writing to register my objection to the above application. I ask that this application be turned down because: It is too expensive
I object to this scheme. About 11 years ago I objected to the hugely damaging Pevensey-Bexhill-Hastings scheme, which was then part of a plan to create a superhighway along the south coast. It is astonishing that this primitive ambition should still be there in this time when one would think that responsible people would be concerned about the terrifying threats to the environment that we face. Not so apparently with the backward authorities of East Sussex. They have seemingly learned nothing in the last eleven years. Astonishingly they still seem to have the strange notion that a road scheme like this will actually bring economic benefit to Hastings. Surely it is well known now that roads go two ways and can suck activity out of an area just as easily as bring it in? In fact as a seaside town Hastings has all the peripherality that makes economic degradation the most likely result of road building (the Calabria effect). Isn't it time for the local authorities to actually do some thinking about what it is that might make Hastings a place people want to come and visit? Isn't the quality of its urban environment, its seaside and its rural setting (some of which is lovely) exactly what it should most value? Of course as usual with authorities that still live in the 1970s there is no thinking about whether any transport problem is solved by this road or whether that problem can be addressed in other more efficient and more environmental ways. Road building should be the option of last resort - how can this be demonstrated if the local authorities have not thought even for a moment about any alternatives? I am sure the local authorities in East Sussex will be lecturing their
ratepayers on how they should switch to energy-saving lightbulbs and turning
their TVs off standby. Yet 8 years away from what the climate scientists are
calling the 'tipping point' here we have an authority prepared to build a scheme
which quite deliberately and significantly increases carbon emissions. This is
shameful behaviour.
I was a student in E Sussex and walked regularly in the areas affected by
this application. My motivation for responding to this application is my belief
that we cannot conduct business as usual in the face of rising man-made
greenhouse gas emissions. As planners you are still useful professionals shaping
the future of society in a broader sense than purely an economic one. Many
people across the entire environmental movement are following this particular
roadscheme.
I am writing to object to this application and request that it be refused for the many following reasons. The County Council have made no attempt to even consider any alternatives to this destructive barbaric scheme. A Tram link system would be a wonderful, environmental alternative very
similar to the Tram system in the Croydon, Sutton,Wimbledon and Shirley area.
This would/could run from Ore to Hastings Old Town then along the seafront to St
Leonards on to Bexhill and then follow the old Railway
where possible back to Ore ensuring that the route goes close to as many schools
as possible thereby reducing the 'school runs' which are mainly responsible for
the heavy morning and afternoon traffic along the Bexhill Road and along the
Ridge
We are writing to object to the planning application RR/2474/CC(EIA) Hastings/Bexhill link Road on the grounds that the proposed road is significantly different to that put forward in the public consultation. In particular:
We will find one day that we have traded away what makes life worth living -- beauty, natural wonder and communion -- in exchange for a quick fix of speeding off to nowhere to make a few more quid. Can it ever be worth it? That is why I am writing to register my objection to the above application. I
ask that this application be turned down because it is harmful to our children
and our deeper selves.
Development of the proposed road would result in loss of irreplaceable ancient woodland, contrary to Planning Policy Statement 9, which articulates the Government's view of the importance of conserving ancient woodland and preserving it as a valuable biodiversity resource. Further damage to, and loss of, ancient woodland will result from the opening
of the eastern edge of Bexhill for residential and other development.
I understand that the Council has not carried out a full analytical review of
alternative solutions to traffic congestion in the area. There is a lack of
forethought and a failure to consider the bigger picture in terms of air, noise
and light pollution, and the problems associated with climate change. Non-road
options have never been offered.
I am writing to register my objection to the above application. I ask that this application be turned down because: The solution seeks to relocate, rather than resolve, the issue of congestion and inappropriate car usage. It is not part of a sustainable transport policy - it is a knee jerk reaction to the undoubted problems faced by residents and campaigners on the Bexhill Road. There is no firm evidence to support the regeneration arguments put forward in its favour. The area, and especially the people of Bexhill Road, could benefit from a £89m investment in many more far-sighted ways. The scheme will attract, not disperse, traffic - as as been the case with the Newbury bypass. It is indicative of the antiquated thinking and abuse of natural resources which have made climate change a major threat to the welfare of future genrations. Finally, and most importantly, IT WILL NOT WORK! Just ask anyone at the
Dartford Crossing on Monday morning if the construction of the M25 Orbital has
resolved their transport difficulties.
I am writing to register my strongest objections towards the Bexhill to Hastings link road.As a resident of London road, Bexhill, the proposed link road would be situated almost at the bottom of our garden where at the moment we enjoy wonderful peace and solitude. If this link road goes ahead we will find ourselves sandwiched between two very busy, noisy smelly roads ( London Road is a constant stream of noisy cars that go far too fast and the link road will be a mirror image of this) that will totally destroy our quality of life. It would also destroy one of the last natural wildlife havens left in Bexhill town.Also our three cats would most certainly get run over. The old railway line is part of their territory as well as many other creatures including badgers and foxes. Also the new road will create even more traffic on our roads and with that pollution. Surely with national and regional policy on climate change we should be discouraging people from using roads by providing suitable alternatives. By building this link road pollution and carbon emmisions in the area will increase tenfold. Please consider turning down this application and consider a comprehensive
and sustainable transport strategy for Hastings and Bexhill that will not have
such a dire effect on its residents and on the environment.
Train services have deteriorated massively since the 60s when I lived there. The Polegate by pass is now considered by locals to be a disaster. There is very little economic regeneration, and so those claims for the Hastings road should be dismissed Again the Polegate bypass has increased traffic and has not addressed the
underlying issues. Similar with the Hastings bypass
Building new roads to tackle congestion is like loosening your
belt to tackle obesity.
Everyone is aware of the problems with traffic on the Ridge. The number of vehicles using the road is already well beyond its design capacity. This is apparent from the continuous congestion problems. We already know of the plans for the expansion of the Ivyhouse Lane and Castleham Industrial estates as well as nearly a thousand new houses at Ore Valley and Fredrick Road. All of this will generate a large increase in traffic on The Ridge. Add to this the proposal for the Link Road to take traffic from Ravenside across Pebsham to join Queensway at Crowhurst Road and there will be complete chaos on The Ridge and misery for Residents, not just on The Ridge, but on the adjacent roads. The Western bypass proposal which would have had the same impact as the Link Road, was rejected by the Minister Stephen Byers. The Access to Hastings Multi Modal Study said that there would be a minimum ten fold increase in the traffic on Queensway with construction of the bypass. Because of the impact this would have on The Ridge and residents living along the road the authors of the Study rejected any plans for the Western bypass if a link was not provided to take the traffic across country to rejoin the A259 at Guestling Thorn. They said [Paragraph 9.22]: "Strategy 4 examined a scenario in which the Western Bypass was constructed without the Eastern Bypass. In chapter 8, we have set out our findings on the viability of this option. This concludes that it is neither practical nor desirable to construct the Western bypass in isolation." However, this is exactly what is being proposed with the Link Road plans. It is clear that the Town and County are ignoring the study conclusions and local residents concerns over the state of The Ridge, and the impact on local residents. The Town and County seem to be determined to ensure that The Ridge becomes more congested than Bexhill Road. My concerns are not just about resident's quality of life. The Ridge has
three schools, the Hospital and Fire Station. What impact will all this traffic
have on these. School children suffering increased incidents of Asthma and other
respiratory illnesses. Delays for the emergency services, with potential fatal
consequences.
This whole scheme is out of date and in the light of the need to take urgent action over climate change, utterly irresponsible, since traffic and emissions will increase overall. No scheme which cannot be proven to substantially reduce traffic levels and emissions should even be considered now.
Evidence shows that road building is associated with increased motor traffic,
resulting in greater environmental cost for lesser economic benefit. I ask that
this application be turned down in favour of devoting resources to developing
more sustainable transport options such as rail, bus, cycling and walking.
It MUST be realised that the answer to traffic congestion is NOT 'more roads'. Alternative solutions have to be found, including public transport and
reducing the need for private travel.
There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is the
most serious issue facing the world today. It could lead to the planet becoming
uninhabitable, and then what use would roads be ?
If this Link Road is essential, then I am sure road building projects in the developing nations are even more "essential". If the rest of the world used non renewable oil at the same rate as this nation does, we will be lucky to keep temperature rises in this century under 6 degrees Celsius warmer than the start of the Industrial Revolution, never mind 20C, which is the hope. If you are not prepared to fight climate change locally, then why should the rest of the world fight it globally? WAKE UP!
Finally, please consider the wider implications of the terrible example every sanctioned road development gives to the rest of the world. This country is meant to be a world leader in the fight against climate change, setting an example to the rest of the world. Why should the rest of the world take us seriously, when we seemingly cannot wean ourselves off the addiction to road building, with the inevitable corresponding increase in congestion, pollution, climate changing emissions and the ever increasing use of non renewable oil reserves. Please, come to your senses, and find sustainable alternatives that you and
the nation can be proud of!
You should be encouraging greener and healthier alternatives to ever more
motor traffic, instead of encouraging more. You could make an enormous
difference to local transport problems by spending this money on promoting and
facilitating alternatives to cars, vans and lorries. You
need to take a genuine look at other ways to spend these millions of pounds
instead of drawing up detailed plans to spend it on roads and then looking for
ways ti dismiss the alternatives. What are you so keen to drive a juggernaut
through our countryside when there are alternatives if only you would open your
eyes?
The environmental impact of the road (and its associated developments) on Combe Haven, a SSSI and acknowledged as one of the most beautiful remaining unspoilt valleys in East Sussex, would be unacceptable in terms of landscape, heritage, wildlife, water quality, noise and pollution. And we don't need yet another bleak green field business park!
Traffic problems would be better solved by initiatives to reduce the number
of people driving rather than old-fashioned "build more roads and move them
elsewhere" solutions which have been found not to work everywhere else in
the country!
With the environmental crisis we currently face it is essential that we do everything we can to encourage people to use more sustainable forms of transport than driving. regrettably, building more roads will have the opposite effect. Put simply, there will be more traffic if the road is built compared to no road. The cost of building the road seems to keep increasing. This money would be much better spent on improving sustainable transport, ie better cycling facilities and public transport, if you are serious about tackling climate change and the depletion of our natural resources. There will be a terrible impact on biodiversity in the area as well as noise
and pollution which will decrease the quality of life for people living in the
area which would be affected by this.
We are now in a completely different situation with the effects of climate change. All road building plans now have to be looked at again to find the sustainable alternatives. Any additional road space is likely to increase vehicle miles. All
authorities ought to discourage vehicle use to enable transport CO2
emissions to be reduced.
The devastating environmental and financial cost of this road scheme is
simply not justified and East Sussex CC have failed to consider seriously
seeking central Government support for an improved frequent
"metro-style" train service between Bexhill and Ore
with new stations to fill the existing longer gaps, and improved rail
infrastructure between Ore and Ashford to permit more frequent and longer
trains, and encourage motorists to switch travel modes accordingly. Most
importantly East Sussex CC are clearly failing to address the increasing wider
community concerns that more roads and traffic will worsen the environment, and
that this type of solution to congestion is hopeless, and should be consigned to
history.
The West of England is in the same position. Increased road building despite the fact that we have a suburban rail infrastructure which is underused. The government (and all major political parties) are submitting to the
commercial interests of road builders, the oil lobby and undertakers. Aren't
3000 deaths on the road enough?
It dismays me that Hastings is back on the agenda as a location for the
building of a damaging road scheme. Government policy is for the reduction of
carbon emissions, and local government has a role to play in this being
achieved. You are in the process of flouting this policy and with no good cause.
There are many parallels between these proposals and equally destructive and
unsustainable road plans for Derby -ie the proposed completion of the inner ring
road. Neither road plan takes account of the millions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide which will be produced by additional traffic
causing more burning of fossil fuels, which this Government is also pledged to
conserve by having signed EU Sustainability Objectives.
I plead with you to reconsider your plan to build a new Bexhill Hastings link road for the following reasons and would appreciate a reply from you. My sisters and I spent a week last year in Sussex and stayed in Bexhill and visited Combe Haven Valley. Because we enjoyed the scenery and the area so much we returned again this year (2 weeks ago)and were very sad to hear about local council plans to build a ring road through the valley area. Here in N Ireland we have a bad record of preserving areas of natural beauty and heritage in general. It's a problem of culture diversity, politics and just general apathy. You people in England have no excuse but have every reason to protect your green and beautiful land. You have also fantastic villages and towns etc within lovely natural valleys and hills abound with trees and fantastic views. It's that what attracts me to English holidays and so I wonder does the tourist industry support your proposed road plan? It is a known fact that every additional road build for ease of traffic congestion merely encourages additional vehicular use and within less than 5 years creates more congestion with more road use. I appreciate the problems for the residents of the existing main road but there is nothing to suggest that the new ring road will ease their problem of through traffic. Nor will it likely have any advantage to anyone but will only increase taxes for no good reason. Surely the projected cost of the new road £89 million would be be more wisely spent on reducing road traffic rather than increasing it? Short term costly answers are unwise. As a council you could gain national acclaim by using half of the money to gain greatly reduced road traffic.
It makes no sense to me that you as the local government support this very obvious environmentally unfriendly road project even though the official government message day and daily via the media and posters etc asks us to cut our global footprints. The East Sussex people voted for you so they are entitled to get their
money's worth with honesty.
Although I do not live in the Coombe Valley I feel that I have a right to be
very concerned about any major new road. The expansion of our road network is
simply not sustainable on a local, national and international level. To grant
permission for this road will just ensure more cars, lorries etc, less
biodiversity and green space, more carbon dioxide and more human casued climate
change.
I am writing to complain most strongly about this crazy plan. Not only will it draw even more traffic into the area, but it will destroy wildlife and nature in the process. £89 million will become £100m plus as usual in these schemes (cost has doubled already). This money could and should be invested in a rapid transit system instead. As an ex- traffic engineer, traffic flows are always conveniently
under-estimated.
Instead of new roads, traffic, both passenger and freight, should be taken
off them by re-opening old railway routes and increasig services on existing
routes. I cannot understand why there seems to be money for new environmentally
damaging roads but not for environmentally friendly railways.
It is surely time to reverse the redundant policy of building more roads.
Carbon emissions need to be slashed urgently and there is no room for increasing
them by any means.
concerned about irretrievable damage to the environment. East Sussex still is
(but that may become was) a beautiful county, which is now under threat because
of the pressure to build and develop without seemingly any safeguards to the
environment in place. It seems like a developers's paradise. We cannot possibly
underrate the importance of green and pleasant surroundings and there
seems to be a juggernaut pressing ahead to destroy one of our most treasured
assets. Once it has gone, under concrete, it will all be a bit too late. What a
legacy for future generations! Let us stop, NOW!
I would just like to add my name. Why not come up with a more environmentally friendly plan - good for cyclists and walkers. The car is king here and other methods of transport should be encouraged. The South east is crowded enough and we need lovely open spaces. Please keep Sussex green - not tarmac-ed.
|
| News |
| 1 June 2007 Fighting the proposed link road - update June 2008 |
| 28 October 2007 Hastings Alliance on TV |
| 7 August 2007 Hastings Alliance's own objection as submitted to the council in August 2007 |
| 7 October 2007 Natural England officially objects to proposed road |
| 14 September 2007 Over 1800 objections received by the Council |
| 20 July 2007 Environment Agency objects to proposed road |
| 25 May 2007 Plans officially unveiled - objection period starts |
| 14 May 2007 Council could have forseen costs of flooding work |
| 6 March 2007 Call to re-think |
| 6 March 2007 Alternatives not properly considered |
| 27 February 2007 Cost of proposed link road has nearly doubled |
| 27 December 2006 Countryside agency ignoring own report |
| 5 September 2006 Press Release: County Council's Link Road Leaflet "misleading and inaccurate" |
| 4 July 2006 Press Release: New roads are creating massive traffic growth |
| 12 June 2006 Proposals for Junction to A21 |