Your Letters - July 13

Conquest filth

TWICE in the past 18 months we have taken a friend (a retired nurse) to visit her husband in the Conquest and both times have been disgusted by the state of the place.

Both A & E and wards and corridors smelt like a urinal, the stench was overbearing. On the last occasion an American tourist who has two broken legs in a motorbike accident in the bed opposite my friend's husband, had an overflowing urine bottle which he had repeatedly asked to be emptied (which my friend eventually did for him!) After even her complaints were ignored, his blood and muddled clothes had been left for days thrown on a chair next to the bed, the whole ward was dirty and untidy. When we took my friend there along the corridor was a large pool of dried blood on the floor and up the wall, it was still there when we returned hours later to collect her and was strewn with litter.

We were all absolutely appalled by the state of the place.

AUDREY COOK (Mrs)

Albany Road.

In blunderland

IF you can bear it, let's try to follow the latest logic from the planning experts of SEEDA. The new link road, we are told, is necessary because it will relieve additional congestion caused by what? Oh yes, the development areas which will happen because of the Link Road.

Never mind if you don't follow. This is a circular SEEDA logic designed to make you dizzy. Also, we will not have to battle through the one problem of the Glyne Gap roundabout but rather an additional two bottlenecks at either end of the Link Road plus another at Little Common.

Tough if you want to get anywhere in a hurry; but never mind the Link Road doesn't go anywhere near where you want to go. You will just have to use the old road. All roads will now have a cycle lane designed to offset all the extra pollution this will cause. Never mind that no-one ever uses them and that they will cause even more obstacles if you still want to use your car.

This will only cost you, a hard working tax payer, 89 million and destroy a lot of lovely countryside unnecessarily. Bexhill residents can be forgiven for believing that they live with Alice in Wonderland.

J.J. Wilson

The Highlands.

Arcane rules

HAVING been present at the recent Council meeting which approved the controversial development of the garage site in Little Common, I confIrm my congratulations on the accuracy and objectivity of your report (June 29).

Objectors had circulated documented legal advice, based on Government Planning Policy Statements and the Local Plan, detailing valid planning grounds for refusal to all members prior to the meeting. It was difficult for an onlooker to judge whether the silence of most members stemmed from lack of understanding of these issues or a reluctance to engage in constructive debate. Only Cllr. Prochak spoke to this advice at some length, ably supported by Cllrs. Vereker, Lendon, Douart and Wood, but their views were dismissed by several majority members, who clearly intended to put their fears of the cost of a possibly lost appeal above the express interests of local residents. One exception was Ward Cllr. Gadd who, despite making the statement reported, ultimately recorded a vote for refusal.

Your Editorial referred to the difficult circumstances of this decision. While objectors were allowed the opportunity of one verbal question plus a supplementary question to the meeting, this process was totally emasculated by the application of arcane rules. Such rules not only required the questions to be submitted in writing in advance, but also to be "non-specific" to the subject under discussion! The immediate negative response by the Leader was read from a script probably drafted by the same officers recommending acceptance of the proposal. There was no further discussion.

I do not know whether such rules have emanated from the control freaks in Westminster, or whether they are part of a policy designed by Rother to suppress the expression of embarrassing objections by the public. I do know that 30 years ago the London Borough of Lewisham had a policy which allowed impromptu verbal representations to planning meetings by both applicants and objectors. The summary dismissal of objectors' views at this meeting indicates that it is high time for Rother Council to reconsider their oppressive policy.

J HODSON

Cooden Sea Road.

Bypass needed

I AM writing to draw your attention to the effects on Little Common of the proposal for the Bexhill to Hastings relief road.

'¢ The proposal will result in a huge increase in the traffic on Barnhorne Road, Little Common Road, Cooden Sea Road and Peartree Lane, all at Little Common and;

'¢ The proposal will result in a substantial and unacceptable increase in Community Severance for the residents of Little Common.

Traffic - The Environmental Statement prepared by East Sussex County Council for this scheme, shows that traffic on Barnhorne Road will increase immediately by 25% and on Little Common Road will increase by 18%. The effects on Little Common Road and Cooden Sea Road get worse in the further future forecasts. This information is tucked away in Chapter 6 of Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement.

These traffic flows are subject to seasonal variation and will be some 25% higher in the summer months, they also imply routinely about 2300 vehicles an hour in the peak periods and up to 3000 vehicles per hour in the summer. This will definitely call for a radical change in the junction design at Little Common, the Traffic and Transport section states that Little Common roundabout is a site of traffic delay!

Community Severance - The Environmental Statement lists as one of the "Objectives - to reduce community severance in the A259 corridor ..." This is clearly not the case for Little Common! And "Community Severance" is defined as "the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community caused by ... changes in traffic flows". In Little Common the village shopping centre straddles the A259 with the Post Office and various shops on one side and the local butcher, baker, deli and supermarket etc on the other side of the road. In addition the school children from the local school on the south side of the road daily have to be guided across by a lollipop lady. This is very much the centre of a local community. In addition there is a Community Hall on one side of the road.

But the Environmental Statement brushes this under the carpet without a mention. East Sussex County Council states that "traffic is forecast to increase in some roads in Bexhill and Hastings" but does not draw attention to the substantial increase at Little Common.

The levels of traffic flow envisaged would definitely require the A259 Barnhorne and Little Common Roads to be widened at the junction, which is surely something we don't want.