Green to the Core must include the protection of plants and animals from the adverse effects of artificial light at night.

Support putting biodiversity and climate effects at the core of the Plan.

The proposed developments for Catsfield (CAT0001 and 0016) are both within the High Weald National Landscape. Development of these sites will undoubtedly have an impact on biodiversity and the environment as a whole. It is a beautiful area and contains many varieties of trees, plants, animals and insects.

A proposal that nearly doubles the existing homes in the village cannot help with the reduction of carbon emissions. There is limited pavement and the road network has large areas of National Speed limit. walking to any significant services is impossible. To live in the village it virtually a requirement to have a car.

Please see attached representation.

Please see attached comments.

The proposal to use important greenfield sites destroying local wildlife and woodland means this plan is anything but green to the core .

Support this goal. The climate crisis is paralleled by a nature crisis and we need solutions that will tackle both. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted in its most recent progress report that we are failing significantly to meet the level of tree planting and woodland creation needed to meet net zero targets. In addition to absorbing carbon emissions, trees and hedgerows help mitigate the impacts of climate change, delivering natural cooling in urban heat islands through transpiration as well as providing shelter and shade, and contributing to sustainable urban drainage systems. They also make a valuable contribution to the quality of the public realm, helping reduce air, noise and light pollution and improve people’s mental health. A plan that is truly 'Green to the Core' should have policies for retaining and increasing tree cover at its heart.

Please see attached full representation

I own the Caldbec House site, originally slated for 5-9 in the earlier pre- Neighbourhood Plan study.

As a Yimby not a Nimby I have recently built one, and am awaiting a decision on two more homes. It keeps getting harder and more expensive and takes longer to get anything built, and that is on land I have owned for forty years. I rent out properties there long-term and short term, and have since 1996.

In my view the field to the south of Caldbec House could take two detached houses and two pairs of semis without overdevelopment, within walking distance of Battle, by road or footpath. Importantly, a mains sewer commences in the field, so the main infrastructure is already in place without cost or disruption.

My other property over the road Hughs’ Field/Land north of Caldbec House had applications for first five houses then one house turned down on appeal. It is misdescribed in the present paperwork, which should be corrected. It is clearly within town, and not part of the Furness lands off Virgin’s Lane, or part of the two Kingsmead public meadows, though it got lumped in with them in earlier studies. In my view, it could easily accommodate one detached house and two pairs of semis, which would hardly be seen from the street or elsewhere, all within walking distance of the town, in the least traffic-clogged bit of town. It is of no earning power as a field, has no access to the public, and has effectively been expropriated to suit and benefit neighbours as if public green space without compensation. Given the pressing need for housing, it should be re-included in plans.

Both fields and Caldbec have been visited recently by X.

When the town was surveyed some years ago, what most people wanted was small developments spread out through the town, not blocks of 50 or 220. Caldbec is the only small development in town.

I would also comment on the core objectives, though it might not be in my interest to do so. I do not agree with Green to the Core as the primary objective, though it is clear it will happen. I think such issues are better dealt with by the national government. As a tourist town needing commerce, good public loos and more free parking are in my view a higher priority at this level than net zero. As someone who had a commercial shop in Battle, I’d put people and housing for locals first; I note the Rother header picture is of sheep. I like sheep, I have tried to put them in my fields, the paperwork is beyond belief. It is also not easy to be a landlord or a local developer, and I think town councils should modulate their levels of opposition and interference into private property if their members are largely unelected. That includes TPOs, which in my view should be used very sparingly on private property if they are not to have unintended effects. Our land opposite Caldbec was expropriated for a road scheme which was abandoned, the land was eventually declared green space, and then a parking lot was instituted recently on that green space at the entrance to old Battle, at the exact location deemed unsafe when the field was expropriated. There is also a culture of anonymous complaints which in my view is counterproductive, and best reduced.