How to object to ‘non material amendments’

April 14, 2013 by combehavendefenders

You can see full details of the application to the planning committee here.

Ideally you would write your own letter, but if you’re pressed for time, please adopt this one – better an adopted objection, than no objection.  You can send it in or, preferably, email it to devcon@eastsussex.gov.uk, FAO Maresa Kingston.

In addition, you can write to your county councillor, particularly if they are on the planning committee: Godfrey Daniel (Lab, Hastings Braybrooke and Castle) is the chair, and the other members are Richard Stogdon (Con,Crowborough), Barry Taylor (Con, Eastbourne Meads), Kathryn Field (Lib Dem, Battle and Crowhurst), Roy Galley (Con, Buxted Maresfield), Ian Buchanan (UKIP, Peacehaven and Telscombe) and Steve Wallis (Lib Dem, Eastbourne Devonshire).

Please make sure you include your name and address in all objections.

Maresa Kingston, Senior Planner
EastSussex County Council
C Floor, West Block
St Anne’s Crescent
County Hall
Lewes BN7 1UE

Dear Ms Kingston
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/1 – NM/7
I am writing to object to the seven ‘non material amendments’ to the Bexhill Hastings Link Road.
Non-material amendments are intended to be minor and insignificant changes to a planning application.  The amendments in this application are very far from minor, will have a huge adverse impact on the road plans, and should therefore be the subject of a full planning application.
I believe these amendments are a purely cost-cutting measure, and that taken together they will increase the flood risk in the area, and will reduce the attractiveness of the greenway for non-car users.  This will almost certainly have the effect of encouraging people to use their cars rather than cycling or walking, which will lead to more congestion, more carbon emissions, and more accidents.
In particular:
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/1: flood storage
Eliminating flood storage capacity at a time when we face increased flooding as a result of climate change is shortsighted.  Flood risk will be further increased by the increase in hard standing – the road itself, and the huge industrial and residential developments around NE Bexhill, which will cause the loss of a huge area of greenfield land and its capacity to soak up excess water.
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/2: elimination of Glover’s Farm bridge, reduction of width of greenway.
ESCC has claimed that the Link Road will improve access not just for drivers but also for pedestrians and cyclists. This amendment will reduce the width of the greenway, and make it less attractive to cyclists.
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/3: Deletion of dedicated bus lane
ESCC also promised an improved public transport service. Deleting a dedicated bus lane will make bus journeys longer and encourage people to use private cars instead.
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/4: Deletion of crossing of Watermill stream for pedestrians and cyclists, combining greenway north of watermill stream as bridleway, cycleway and footway.
Forcing pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders to share the same path is dangerous and will make the greenway a less attractive option for all three groups, and again may encourage people to use private cars instead.
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/5: Deletion of equestrian bridge and replacement with a ford.
Given the heavy flooding in the area in the winter, there are almost certain to be times when a ford is impassable by horse riders, thereby further reducing the amenity value of the greenway.
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/6: Deletion of the cyclist/pedestrian crossing of Combe Haven and diversion of the greenway  towards the existing crossing.
Diversions of the greenway will make the walking/cycling journey between Hastings and Bexhill longer and further encourage people to make the journey in private cars instead.
RR/2474/CC(EIA)NM/7: Reduction of the verge width from Crowhurst Road underbridge to Queensway junction from 3.5m to 2.5m.
This will further increase the flood risk.
I look forward to hearing your response to my objections.
Yours sincerely