I object to the core strategy in respect of the development and housing. I understand the general planning policy is that new development in the area of outstanding natural beauty is to be opposed, or at least subject to very careful scrutiny. I appreciate that strategy setting is different to considering individual planning applications, but I cannot see how the strategy can be so far at odds with planning guidelines. Battle is a distinct settlement in many senses, and I would deplore the "bridging of the development gap" between it and Hastings, which has a very different character. I also understand that housing demand in early 2009 is not indicative of "normal" conditions, but I wonder where the demand would come from, with little employment in directly in the town, and not very good transport links to elsewhere (like many others, I am a London commuter, and travel time has been been increasing in recent years).
The defining characteristics of Battle, for me, are historic significance, being unspoiled, and the straightforwardness of being an unpretentious small town with a loyal group of residents. Of course this sounds like nimby-ism, but in truth, there is no need or justification to take these qualities away from the people who live here