Planning To Break A Promise
By David Dennis
Hastings Borough Council’s decision to proceed with plans to build 190 new houses inside its own Combe Valley Countryside Park boundary is a breach of its own promise. A local organisation, the Bulverhythe Protectors, regards it as a nightmare scheme. They are growing in strength to oppose it with all legal means available, starting with an online petition .
Combe Valley Countryside Park is a joint enterprise between the local councils of Hastings and Rother with county council involvement. In 2015, when the first meetings of the community interest company (CIC) were being held, there was a determination by CIC directors to preserve the Strategic Gap. This ‘Gap’ was a promise made by both local councils and by East Sussex County Council, not to breach the green space between Hastings and Bexhill and make it into one giant conurbation, but to preserve separate township identities by developing a countryside park of 2.3 square miles (1480 acres) for the public enjoyment and recreation of all local residents and visitors.
As the Combe Valley website states: “About half of the land is privately owned and farmed, and the remainder belongs to Hastings, Rother or East Sussex. The area has two SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and a remarkable amount of wildlife to be treasured with 2,456 recorded species including several rarities.”
Hastings and Rother councils lobbied government for a road bypass to relieve the pressure of traffic on the A259 between the two towns. The controversial bypass now runs right through the centre of Combe Valley Countryside Park. A network of paths exists including a new cycleway running from Sidley in the West to Hollington in the East. Now, just as wildlife and humans are getting used to this bypass, Hastings Council wants to re-inflate the traffic on the A259 by building a large housing estate on the Lower Tier Site behind Bexhill Road which is fully inside the Park boundary. Furthermore, it is understood from comment made in a recent council meeting that more homes may be built on a second tier which would be well inside the park boundary.
Flooding
This land is a site of regular winter flooding because it is part of a natural flood plain, part of the 10,000-year-old Combe Haven winter-flooded valley. The water table is beneficial to wildlife: winter lakes and marshes have hundreds of birds, including marsh harriers, lapwings and black-tailed godwits. In a multi-million-pound scheme, Hastings wants borrow money to pump the natural winter flood water into pools and underground tanks inside another local authority’s land – Rother. Since the winter rains already fill up these existing pools in Rother, it is hard to see how this can be sensible. Pumping water into already filled ponds means more flooding – crazy illogic.
Sea levels are rising due to global warming, wildlife is under threat, and coastal erosion is speeding up. Insurance companies frown at homes built on flood plains. It seems to be an act of civil vandalism to build yet more homes on these natural flood plains next to established and precious sites of special scientific interest, cared for by Sussex Wildlife. In particular, it is likely that the water table for Filsham Reed Beds SSSI will adversely affected, and the annual wildlife ecological cycles of dragonflies and many other creatures living in reed beds will be disrupted. Concerned Sussex Wildlife managers are monitoring these plans.
To spend money on a project that councils promised never to implement is a betrayal of the first order. It needs to be stopped in its disingenuous tracks.
• For more information on the Countryside Park see http://combevalleycountrysidepark.com
• Read HIP’s article about Flood Money Spurs Council Development here
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply