POLICY DEN3: STRATEGIC GAPS
Question 19
Strongly object to the proposed option of deletion of the Battle and Hastings / St
Leonards Strategic Gap between Forewood Lane and Battle Abbey, Battlefield
and the historic town. The Strategic Gap protects the open landscape lying between the urban settlements of Bexhill, Hastings and Battle and the mainline railway: the ridge and the setting of Battle Abbey on the ridge are protected by the gap policy.
The proposed option of deletion of the northern part of the Strategic Gap abandons
the existing safeguarding from encroachment and incremental development out
from Battle development boundary along the ridge into the Strategic Gap.
The retention and protection of this Gap area is important to the conservation of
local landscape character around the historic town of Battle, in particular due to
its ridge top ribbon development form leading out towards the larger urban
settlements.
Removal of the gap strategy from the open landscape below the ridgeline leaves the
development boundary length currently strongly protected newly exposed. Use
of gap strategies to protect historic towns is nationally supported and once identified, their retention and protection is supported. Protecting the open landscape between the development boundary and the London-Hastings mainline railway is logical and justifiable.
The Strategic Gap is seen from the surrounding landscape, neighbouring villages
and the London-Hastings mainline railway. It is not only seen from the Battle-
Hastings road or from within the Strategic Gap area itself.
The Strategic Gap study only reviewed the gap from within the gap area and did not
study the gap from long range views from the west, outside the gap area. From
Catsfield, the two settlements of Battle and the edge of Hastings are held in one
view at either end of the ridge: the Strategic Gap provides the critical setting for
Battle Abbey on the ridge above the Battlefield.
There is also reference to views from the roads and public vantage points, with
apparent reference to a lack of need to protect the integrity and openness of the
open landscape behind the road frontage as a Strategic Gap. The Strategic Gap
protects the open landscape form between settlements, not the road frontage only.

It is also very important that the Strategic Gap protects against the spread of
lighting and light pollution between the settlements: the gap protects against
lighting coalescence.
The Strategic Gap background study contains strong material to support, contrary
to the recommendation, a continuing need to protect the land as a Strategic
Gap. The study states the positive impacts of the existing Strategic Gap and
notes adverse changes sustained, notwithstanding the gap policy protection:
"the gap does maintain the separate identity and clear distinctiveness between the
settlements"
"the town of Battle is maintained by the gap and the settlements are clearly
distinct"
The farmsteads within the gap "do not detract from the objective to prevent
coalescence".
"Despite the considerable amount of development scattered across the area, the
rural character has been preserved. "
The areas noted to have suffered gentrification around Battle, with adverse effect
on local landscape character, fall within the area of the Strategic Gap proposed
for deletion.
"The ribbon development along the ridge between Battle and Hastings does reduce
the impression of the gap along the northern boundary. The urban edge of Battle is the ribbon development along Hastings Road through Telham": this emphasises the reason why the protection of the open landscape within the existing Strategic Gap abutting this extended development edge of Battle should be retained and reinforced, not deleted. This ensures the open landscape gap is retained, even if the impression of the open landscape gap from the road frontage is reduced by the frontage development.
The study notes it is not possible to obtain long views and vantage points of the gap
from within the gap: the long views and vantage points from which one can look
across the entire Strategic Gap are obtained not from within the gap but from
higher ground to the west, in and around Catsfield. This is where the value of the Strategic Gap can be truly appreciated. No views from neighbouring areas were studied. From Catsfield, the boundaries of the Strategic Gap area and views across the gap area to its opposite edges are seen and valued.
"Ribbon development is typically strung out along Forewood Lane between Battle
and Crowhurst": a very good reason why Forewood Lane should not become the
new boundary of the Strategic Gap but should continue to be protected within the broader area of the existing Strategic Gap.
"The ribbon development which extends along Forewood Lane reduces the
experience of leaving one settlement and arriving on another" and "There will be pressure for residential development to expand and infill the area along Forewood Lane to the north of Crowhurst, especially as it is served by a station": again, very good reasons why Forewood Lane should not become the new boundary edge of the Strategic Gap but should continue to be protected within the broader area of the existing Strategic Gap. The Strategic Gap should not newly break at a point of vulnerability.
"The area would be sensitive to change especially on the more open areas and the
higher ground and ridges": the open landscape adjoining the Battle ridgeline
development boundary is proposed for deletion yet it is recognised to be
especially sensitive to change.
There is no justification for deleting part of the established Strategic Gap. No
reasons why this part of the Strategic Gap must be deleted are provided. No planning harm is identified from the continuing application of the policy. It is submitted to delete part of an existing Strategic Gap, overriding and substantial
reasoning necessitating its deletion should exist which are not present here.
The part of the Strategic Gap proposed for deletion also provides the additional
benefits of protecting land around the overhead high voltage pylon line from
incremental development which could augment its adverse effects within the AONB. This is the part of the pylon line proposed for undergrounding under the National Grid visual impact improvement programme and deletion of the part of the Strategic Gap through which the pylon line runs could prejudice its implementation.