South East England

28th November 2008

Head of Planning East Sussex County Council County Hall St Anne’s Crescent Lewes BN7 1UE

Objection to Planning Application number RR/2474/CC (EIA) Bexhill to Hastings Link Road

Dear Sir,

I am writing to register a further objection on behalf of Friends of the Earth. This is in response to the consultations on additional information made available since August 2008. We remain opposed to this scheme for the same reasons outlined in our original objection submitted in July 2007. Whilst we are pleased to see further investigations have been carried out we remain concerned that:

 It will cause unacceptable environmental damage to Marline Woods and Combe Haven Sites of Special Scientific Interest which cannot be fully mitigated.

 It will damage the character of Combe Haven Valley and harm biodiversity

 The scheme is unnecessary and may well undermine regeneration of the area

 It will increase traffic locally and in the wider region and raise CO2 emissions.

 The council has failed to properly investigate and establish more cost effective and less damaging alternative transport measures.

 The valley is an area of flood risk and it is unclear if the design will deal with this effectively

 The scheme goes against Government polices and guidance in PPS1, PPS7, PPS9, PPG13 and PPS25 as well as Treasury guidance on development of road schemes.

 The costs of the scheme at nearly £100m is too high and will prevent investment in more sustainable projects either locally or in other parts of the region.

Friends of the Earth Regional Office, 39-41 Surrey Street, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 3PB Tel 01273 766640 Fax 01273 766678 Email [email protected] Website www.foe.co.uk Friends of the Earth Limited Registered in London No 1012357 Registered Office 26-28 Underwood Street London N1 7JQ

Printed on paper made from 100% post-consumer waste Detailed Comments:

Lack of new non-technical summary information

We would like to point out that the various and numerous documents submitted this year are extremely difficult to engage with. There is no clear summary non-technical information to explain why the Council has submitted further information, nor a summary of how this new information affects the Environmental Impact Assessment. We believe that members of the public have not been provided with relevant summary information in order to be able to formulate informed views.

Since the Environmental Statement was published in April 2007 a considerable amount of further environmental information has been provided in response to the original Statement (and otherwise). However, the Addendum to the Environmental Statement and the Supplementary Nature Conservation Report do not act as a clear, stand alone, updated Environmental Statement. Furthermore, there has been no update to the non-technical summary that is required by virtue of Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The effect is that members of the public have to engage in what Lord Hoffman has memorably described as a “paper chase” (Berkeley v. Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 A.C. 605) in order to make any sense of the plethora of new (post Statement) environmental information that now exists. Bearing in mind the new information (which is significant in terms of both quantity and importance) we think that the current position is entirely inadequate and we ask that you now publish an updated Environmental Statement and an updated non-technical summary

Environmental Issues

We note that it appears that the Environment Agency and Natural England have withdrawn their objections to the scheme on the basis of revised mitigation plans. We remain extremely concerned that there are no guarantees for the viability of protected species under these plans and no contingency plans set out should the mitigation plans not work.

We cannot find information to suggest that the cumulative and indirect impacts of the road and associated development has been fully assessed. If such an assessment has not been carried out we believe that the Environmental Impact Assessment is inadequate.

We are also concerned that the Sussex Wildlife Trust which manages Marline Valley Woods and land to the south of the proposed Link Road has not been consulted about any of the environmental plans since the planning application was submitted a year and a half ago.

The Environment Agency recommended buffer zones wider than 2 metres either side of the watercourse to maintain the ecological functioning of the valley. It appears that the Council has not changed the design but there are no assessments provided of whether the proposed planting will allow the valley to function as effectively in future compared to wider buffer zones. We note that there remain concerns about habitat severance generally and the feasibility of wetland habitats in the Powdermill Valley.

Regeneration

In light of the current global and UK economic trends we believe that the economic case for the scheme should be reviewed. We have previously referenced the research carried out by Urban and Regional Policy which highlighted the weak economic case for the road. Recent additional work concludes that there would be cheaper and better methods of regenerating the area which would align with the rest of the Regeneration 2 “5 Point Plan”. The report recommends that a balanced package of measures would meet the regeneration and transport needs of the area without compromising the environment.

As previously pointed out, the Access to Hastings Multi Modal Study found that up to 1660 houses could be built at Worsham Farm with an access road to Bexhill. We have seen no further studies to look at the feasibility of this approach combined with demand management measures and investment in better public transport.

Transport

We maintain that there has never been a full assessment of alternative ways of dealing with the transport problems in the area. The council appears to have started from the premise that the road was needed for economic reasons which has led to a lack of commitment to other measures to reduce and manage traffic locally. Studies show that investment in a range of demand management measures can lead to a 10-15% decrease in car use. We urge that a fully costed package of alternative transport measures are put before Councillors before a decision is taken on the Link road.

Conclusion

Given the controversy surrounding this scheme and the high costs both financially and environmentally we believe the scheme should be the subject of a Public Inquiry at which an independent inspector can hear all the evidence.

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Pollack, Regional Campaign Co-ordinator