See attached covering letter

See attached covering letter

Please see attached comments on draft Local Plan, including Brede Valley Landscape Assessment and East Sussex Landscape Assessment.

Please see attached comments on draft Local Plan, including Brede Valley Landscape Assessment and East Sussex Landscape Assessment.

• The access to the site is via an already congested road - Tollgates. The access onto North Trade Road was not designed for so much traffic and people locally, including those who have moved into properties on the new site of 63 dwellings report that it is a difficult junction to approach and navigate at peak times. It is very close to Claverham Community College, which generates a lot of traffic and parent parking at school start and finish times. This adds to the congestion in the Tollgates and North Trade Road area at present. Moreover your report acknowledges that Battle's narrow High Street is often congested. 'The town has a train station, but suffers from congestion on its roads, particularly in the peak summer tourist season, as traffic is channelled along narrow roads through the historic town centre.' The new development would be far enough from the station to generate more car journeys even for those who used the trains. There is no alternative to using the High Street to travel South through the town to the Train Station, no parallel route. Sadly the bus service is extremely poor in Battle, and the service is not a viable alternative to driving.
• The nature of the development in Battle is ribbon development and this infilling of such a large site would change that.
• The land at present is farmland, and is able to cope with flooding and excess water. The site is at risk of surface water flooding if properties are built there.
• The development would affect the surrounding woodland and may well lead to the disturbance and destruction of trees. Local experts from the Wildlife Trust are already reporting the absence of certain birds which used to be in the area, this has to impact the 'Green to the Core' principles stated by the council and the climate emergency planning.
• The site assessment has identified a whole list of constraints which are compelling reasons why this site should not be developed.
• There are a number of new developments in Battle which still have unsold houses. The Blackfriars site hasn't had a single house built yet, but will eventually provide over 220 new housing stock. If the right sort of houses are being built (something I doubt) these will provide many properties for local people.

• The access to the site is via an already congested road - Tollgates. The access onto North Trade Road was not designed for so much traffic and people locally, including those who have moved into properties on the new site of 63 dwellings report that it is a difficult junction to approach and navigate at peak times. It is very close to Claverham Community College, which generates a lot of traffic and parent parking at school start and finish times. This adds to the congestion in the Tollgates and North Trade Road area at present. Moreover your report acknowledges that Battle's narrow High Street is often congested. 'The town has a train station, but suffers from congestion on its roads, particularly in the peak summer tourist season, as traffic is channelled along narrow roads through the historic town centre.' The new development would be far enough from the station to generate more car journeys even for those who used the trains. There is no alternative to using the High Street to travel South through the town to the Train Station, no parallel route. Sadly the bus service is extremely poor in Battle, and the service is not a viable alternative to driving.
• The nature of the development in Battle is ribbon development and this infilling of such a large site would change that.
• The land at present is farmland, and is able to cope with flooding and excess water. The site is at risk of surface water flooding if properties are built there.
• The development would affect the surrounding woodland and may well lead to the disturbance and destruction of trees. Local experts from the Wildlife Trust are already reporting the absence of certain birds which used to be in the area, this has to impact the 'Green to the Core' principles stated by the council and the climate emergency planning.
• The site assessment has identified a whole list of constraints which are compelling reasons why this site should not be developed.
• There are a number of new developments in Battle which still have unsold houses. The Blackfriars site hasn't had a single house built yet, but will eventually provide over 220 new housing stock. If the right sort of houses are being built (something I doubt) these will provide many properties for local people.

• The access to the site is via an already congested road - Tollgates. The access onto North Trade Road was not designed for so much traffic and people locally, including those who have moved into properties on the new site of 63 dwellings report that it is a difficult junction to approach and navigate at peak times. It is very close to Claverham Community College, which generates a lot of traffic and parent parking at school start and finish times. This adds to the congestion in the Tollgates and North Trade Road area at present. Moreover your report acknowledges that Battle's narrow High Street is often congested. 'The town has a train station, but suffers from congestion on its roads, particularly in the peak summer tourist season, as traffic is channelled along narrow roads through the historic town centre.' The new development would be far enough from the station to generate more car journeys even for those who used the trains. There is no alternative to using the High Street to travel South through the town to the Train Station, no parallel route. Sadly the bus service is extremely poor in Battle, and the service is not a viable alternative to driving.
• The nature of the development in Battle is ribbon development and this infilling of such a large site would change that.
• The land at present is farmland, and is able to cope with flooding and excess water. The site is at risk of surface water flooding if properties are built there.
• The development would affect the surrounding woodland and may well lead to the disturbance and destruction of trees. Local experts from the Wildlife Trust are already reporting the absence of certain birds which used to be in the area, this has to impact the 'Green to the Core' principles stated by the council and the climate emergency planning.
• The site assessment has identified a whole list of constraints which are compelling reasons why this site should not be developed.
• There are a number of new developments in Battle which still have unsold houses. The Blackfriars site hasn't had a single house built yet, but will eventually provide over 220 new housing stock. If the right sort of houses are being built (something I doubt) these will provide many properties for local people.

• The access to the site is via an already congested road - Tollgates. The access onto North Trade Road was not designed for so much traffic and people locally, including those who have moved into properties on the new site of 63 dwellings report that it is a difficult junction to approach and navigate at peak times. It is very close to Claverham Community College, which generates a lot of traffic and parent parking at school start and finish times. This adds to the congestion in the Tollgates and North Trade Road area at present. Moreover your report acknowledges that Battle's narrow High Street is often congested. 'The town has a train station, but suffers from congestion on its roads, particularly in the peak summer tourist season, as traffic is channelled along narrow roads through the historic town centre.' The new development would be far enough from the station to generate more car journeys even for those who used the trains. There is no alternative to using the High Street to travel South through the town to the Train Station, no parallel route. Sadly the bus service is extremely poor in Battle, and the service is not a viable alternative to driving.
• The nature of the development in Battle is ribbon development and this infilling of such a large site would change that.
• The land at present is farmland, and is able to cope with flooding and excess water. The site is at risk of surface water flooding if properties are built there.
• The development would affect the surrounding woodland and may well lead to the disturbance and destruction of trees. Local experts from the Wildlife Trust are already reporting the absence of certain birds which used to be in the area, this has to impact the 'Green to the Core' principles stated by the council and the climate emergency planning.
• The site assessment has identified a whole list of constraints which are compelling reasons why this site should not be developed.
• There are a number of new developments in Battle which still have unsold houses. The Blackfriars site hasn't had a single house built yet, but will eventually provide over 220 new housing stock. If the right sort of houses are being built (something I doubt) these will provide many properties for local people.

• The access to the site is via an already congested road - Tollgates. The access onto North Trade Road was not designed for so much traffic and people locally, including those who have moved into properties on the new site of 63 dwellings report that it is a difficult junction to approach and navigate at peak times. It is very close to Claverham Community College, which generates a lot of traffic and parent parking at school start and finish times. This adds to the congestion in the Tollgates and North Trade Road area at present. Moreover your report acknowledges that Battle's narrow High Street is often congested. 'The town has a train station, but suffers from congestion on its roads, particularly in the peak summer tourist season, as traffic is channelled along narrow roads through the historic town centre.' The new development would be far enough from the station to generate more car journeys even for those who used the trains. There is no alternative to using the High Street to travel South through the town to the Train Station, no parallel route. Sadly the bus service is extremely poor in Battle, and the service is not a viable alternative to driving.
• The nature of the development in Battle is ribbon development and this infilling of such a large site would change that.
• The land at present is farmland, and is able to cope with flooding and excess water. The site is at risk of surface water flooding if properties are built there.
• The development would affect the surrounding woodland and may well lead to the disturbance and destruction of trees. Local experts from the Wildlife Trust are already reporting the absence of certain birds which used to be in the area, this has to impact the 'Green to the Core' principles stated by the council and the climate emergency planning.
• The site assessment has identified a whole list of constraints which are compelling reasons why this site should not be developed.
• There are a number of new developments in Battle which still have unsold houses. The Blackfriars site hasn't had a single house built yet, but will eventually provide over 220 new housing stock. If the right sort of houses are being built (something I doubt) these will provide many properties for local people.

• The access to the site is via an already congested road - Tollgates. The access onto North Trade Road was not designed for so much traffic and people locally, including those who have moved into properties on the new site of 63 dwellings report that it is a difficult junction to approach and navigate at peak times. It is very close to Claverham Community College, which generates a lot of traffic and parent parking at school start and finish times. This adds to the congestion in the Tollgates and North Trade Road area at present. Moreover your report acknowledges that Battle's narrow High Street is often congested. 'The town has a train station, but suffers from congestion on its roads, particularly in the peak summer tourist season, as traffic is channelled along narrow roads through the historic town centre.' The new development would be far enough from the station to generate more car journeys even for those who used the trains. There is no alternative to using the High Street to travel South through the town to the Train Station, no parallel route. Sadly the bus service is extremely poor in Battle, and the service is not a viable alternative to driving.
• The nature of the development in Battle is ribbon development and this infilling of such a large site would change that.
• The land at present is farmland, and is able to cope with flooding and excess water. The site is at risk of surface water flooding if properties are built there.
• The development would affect the surrounding woodland and may well lead to the disturbance and destruction of trees. Local experts from the Wildlife Trust are already reporting the absence of certain birds which used to be in the area, this has to impact the 'Green to the Core' principles stated by the council and the climate emergency planning.
• The site assessment has identified a whole list of constraints which are compelling reasons why this site should not be developed.
• There are a number of new developments in Battle which still have unsold houses. The Blackfriars site hasn't had a single house built yet, but will eventually provide over 220 new housing stock. If the right sort of houses are being built (something I doubt) these will provide many properties for local people.

I am writing to formally object to the Rother Draft Local Plan reference number BAT00014, which concerns the proposed development on Almonry Farm. I strongly oppose this plan for several reasons: – The area proposed is grade farming land full of a large range of rare and important fauna and flora including bats, newts and the endangered slow worms, ancient trees and a very special green amenity space for the community.

In addition, the local roads are already at breaking point with a very large secondary school listed as the access road and such numbers would completely change the character and community of this important historic town. I am very concerned about the purposed access as Tollgate roads are already clogged with cars and it often very difficult to get out of Tollgate or home during school drop off and school pick up. Also the health impact this will have on my children living in the area, less trees, more cars equals more pollution.

I urge the council to reconsider this plan and protect the character and environment of our community.

See attachment for response.

I'm concerned at the proposed inclusion of land at Tollgates. This is Grade 1 farmland, I believe, with well used footpaths & includes hedgerows, woodland & much wildlife. The impact on our straining infrastructure will be untenable & the traffic & road conditions along North Trade Road are already severe. The ribbon development now extends beyond Claverham School & further development will be heavy & devastating to wildlife at Blackfriars. Further development by extending beyond Tollgates should be axed!

I am writing to formally object to the Rother Draft Local Plan reference number BAT00014, which concerns the proposed development on Almonry Farm. I strongly oppose this plan even though I also reside in the new development at the back of Tollgates.

The amount of traffic that currently uses Tollgates and North Trade Road is extremely high and the road is already plagued by traffic jams and delays (I know because I live on these roads). Additional homes will cause chaos and gridlock on the already poor infrastructure of Battle. If the owners of the new large development (that will make a lot of money) provided link roads around Battle, provided additional schooling/GP capacity etc then there would be an argument to having the development. However, this wont be the case and the homes will be built and linked into poor infrastructure - becoming Battles problem not the developers..

Given the state of the road (small/narrow, potholed, poorly surfaced main road - with lots of cars parked on North trade + the roads linking to it like Tollgates) the road is at full capacity. If the development is granted the road will be suffocated beyond use and this doesn't include the additional constraints the centre parcs style development in Catsfield will also add to the road if it gets greenlighted with hundreds of cars piling onto North Trade Road weekly at the same time from London's A21).

Developments are needed but improved infrastructure is required to handle this (as has been done with the developments by Pebsham/Bexhill). The hundreds of homes already being built in Battle by the Station should be enough until further infrastructure, schooling, GP etc improvements are made as we are full. I urge the council to reconsider this plan and protect the character and environment of our amazing Battle as we all know what happens to the high street when north trade road already backs up... chaos. Increased traffic will turn the high street to a ghost town.

Please confirm receipt of this objection and keep me informed of any further developments related to this application.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I am writing to formally object to the Rother Draft Local Plan reference number BAT00014, which concerns the proposed development on Almonry Farm. I strongly oppose this plan for several reasons: – The area proposed is grade farming land full of a large range of rare and important fauna and flora including bats, newts, ancient trees and a very special green amenity space for the community. In addition, the local roads are already at breaking point with a very large secondary school listed as the access road and such numbers would completely change the character and community of this important historic town.

I urge the council to reconsider this plan and protect the character and environment of our community.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of land at Almonry Farm, North Trade Road. Site ID BAT0014

I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of houses in this location for the following reasons:

1.The area proposed for development lies within the High Weald AONB and any planned housing would cause significant damage to the immense biodiversity of the area which comprises of ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, meadows, ancient hedgerows/boundaries and habitats for endangered plants, fungi, birds, bats, reptiles and mammals. The infrastructure required to build 100 houses (sewers, piping systems, cables, foundations etc) would decimate the ecology of the site and endanger wildlife thus not fulfilling the National Policy of affording AONB sites ‘highest status of protection.’

2. 3.63 The NPPF specifically states that the scale and extent of development within an AONB should be limited and advises that planning applications for major development should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances. (p.60) Rother draft local plan 2020-40

The classification of a major development is 10 houses or more, this proposal is for 100 houses. Why? There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ of housing need in Battle. Several houses at Lillybank (most recent development) are unsold and now reduced in price. There are many family-sized homes currently for sale in Battle that have been advertised for 6 months + Added to this is the current development of the Blackfriars site which is for 200 houses.

3. Urban Sprawl. A poor decision on a planning application on this site (100 houses) could set a precedent for a pattern of development that could lead to massive expansion and exploitation of the site as it is over 18 hectares leading to urban sprawl.

4. Battle is a hugely important market town, home to one of the UK’s most important historical sites and brings thousands of visitors every year. Building over historic land would change the look and feel of Battle from a small town to a conurbation and a less attractive place to visit. This would have a direct impact on local businesses and the economy.

5. Viable farmland ruined. The site comprises of Grade A, viable farmland. It is currently used for livestock, haylage and hay. Building over this site would rob the opportunity of this area ever being farmed again thus demeaning food security.

6. Historic site decimated. The fields of Almonry farm were formerly part of Battle Abbey and are of historical importance. The fields, ancient woodland and hedgerows provide a green buffer between the town and Battle Abbey

7. Road. Battle High Street and North Trade Road are heavily congested and at times Battle High Street is gridlocked. North Trade Road and Battle Highstreet are ancient thoroughfares with many listed and Historically significant buildings. The traffic generated by 100 extra houses will put enormous pressure on the already strained road network and old buildings.

8. Infrastructure. What are the plans for extra school places? GP surgeries and dentists?

9. Access via Tollgates residential area is unworkable. The planned access road would put immense pressure on the small, residential road into Tollgates (an area which has just recovered from expansion). There is no junction capacity.

10. The proposed access road will bisect 2 buildings of historical importance via a residential garden. Almonry Farmhouse (a Grade 2 listed building) and Almonry Oast House. A substantial amount of mature trees and shrubs would have to be removed in order to build an access road.

11. There is significant surface water flooding across several areas of the proposed site, underground springs and streams. Any removal of woodland/shrubs will have a negative impact on the water table and clay soil with the potential to upheave homes.

12. The planned road would bisect a public footpath which is currently heavily utilised by the public and most especially the pupils of Claverham School and Battle Langton School as a safe route to school. A road bisecting the footpath would compromise the safety and independence of children travelling to and from school.

13. After the reneged promises of the developers at the current Blackfriars site and the inability of RDC to compel the developers to make good their promise of affordable housing and social housing it is clear there is absolutely NO appetite for any further large-scale housing developments in Battle.

https://www.rother.gov.uk/housing/housing-development/rother-dc-housing-company-makes-significant-progress-to-deliver-its-first-housing-scheme

14. The people of Battle are not NIMBY’s, moreover a concerned populace that believes their heritage and green future are at stake. The main tenet of the RDC draft development plan is ‘Green to the core.’

‘Green to the Core emphasises the need to consider the impact of our planning decisions on the climate emergency, biodiversity crisis and the High Weald National Landscape.’ Rother District Council’s draft Local Plan (2020 – 40).

RDC need to listen to the responses of this consultation and consider the implications for future generations, in a declining population, of the impact decisions today have on Battle’s Green future. There are other sites to consider that don’t choke the life out of Battle. Leave our precious AONB alone.

Q64. What are your views on the potential sites identified in the draft HELAA that could accommodate more growth in Battle and surrounding settlements?

I am writing to make a record of my concerns after reviewing Rother District Council’s draft Local Plan (2020 – 40) and draft housing and economic land availability assessments (HELAA). Specifically Chapter 3 of the HELAA document, Battle and surrounding settlements. P.31

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of land at Almonry Farm, North Trade Road. Site ID BAT0014

I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of houses in this location for the following reasons:

1.The area proposed for development lies within the High Weald AONB and any planned housing would cause significant damage to the immense biodiversity of the area which comprises of ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, meadows, ancient hedgerows/boundaries and habitats for endangered plants, fungi, birds, bats, reptiles and mammals. The infrastructure required to build 100 houses (sewers, piping systems, cables, foundations etc) would decimate the ecology of the site and endanger wildlife thus not fulfilling the National Policy of affording AONB sites ‘highest status of protection.’

2. 3.63 The NPPF specifically states that the scale and extent of development within an AONB should be limited and advises that planning applications for major development should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances. (p.60) Rother draft local plan 2020-40

The classification of a major development is 10 houses or more, this proposal is for 100 houses. Why? There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ of housing need in Battle. Several houses at Lillybank (most recent development) are unsold and now reduced in price. There are many family-sized homes currently for sale in Battle that have been advertised for 6 months + Added to this is the current development of the Blackfriars site which is for 200 houses.

3. Urban Sprawl. A poor decision on a planning application on this site (100 houses) could set a precedent for a pattern of development that could lead to massive expansion and exploitation of the site as it is over 18 hectares leading to urban sprawl.

4. Battle is a hugely important market town, home to one of the UK’s most important historical sites and brings thousands of visitors every year. Building over historic land would change the look and feel of Battle from a small town to a conurbation and a less attractive place to visit. This would have a direct impact on local businesses and the economy.

5. Viable farmland ruined. The site comprises of Grade A, viable farmland. It is currently used for livestock, haylage and hay. Building over this site would rob the opportunity of this area ever being farmed again thus demeaning food security.

6. Historic site decimated. The fields of Almonry farm were formerly part of Battle Abbey and are of historical importance. The fields, ancient woodland and hedgerows provide a green buffer between the town and Battle Abbey

7. Road. Battle High Street and North Trade Road are heavily congested and at times Battle High Street is gridlocked. North Trade Road and Battle Highstreet are ancient thoroughfares with many listed and Historically significant buildings. The traffic generated by 100 extra houses will put enormous pressure on the already strained road network and old buildings.

8. Infrastructure. What are the plans for extra school places? GP surgeries and dentists?

9. Access via Tollgates residential area is unworkable. The planned access road would put immense pressure on the small, residential road into Tollgates (an area which has just recovered from expansion). There is no junction capacity.

10. The proposed access road will bisect 2 buildings of historical importance via a residential garden. Almonry Farmhouse (a Grade 2 listed building) and Almonry Oast House. A substantial amount of mature trees and shrubs would have to be removed in order to build an access road.

11. There is significant surface water flooding across several areas of the proposed site, underground springs and streams. Any removal of woodland/shrubs will have a negative impact on the water table and clay soil with the potential to upheave homes.

12. The planned road would bisect a public footpath which is currently heavily utilised by the public and most especially the pupils of Claverham School and Battle Langton School as a safe route to school. A road bisecting the footpath would compromise the safety and independence of children travelling to and from school.

13. After the reneged promises of the developers at the current Blackfriars site and the inability of RDC to compel the developers to make good their promise of affordable housing and social housing it is clear there is absolutely NO appetite for any further large-scale housing developments in Battle.

https://www.rother.gov.uk/housing/housing-development/rother-dc-housing-company-makes-significant-progress-to-deliver-its-first-housing-scheme

14. The people of Battle are not NIMBY’s, moreover a concerned populace that believes their heritage and green future are at stake. The main tenet of the RDC draft development plan is ‘Green to the core.’

‘Green to the Core emphasises the need to consider the impact of our planning decisions on the climate emergency, biodiversity crisis and the High Weald National Landscape.’ Rother District Council’s draft Local Plan (2020 – 40).

RDC need to listen to the responses of this consultation and consider the implications for future generations, in a declining population, of the impact decisions today have on Battle’s Green future. There are other sites to consider that don’t choke the life out of Battle. Leave our precious AONB alone.

I am writing to make a record of my concerns after reviewing Rother District Council’s draft Local Plan (2020 – 40) and draft housing and economic land availability assessments (HELAA). Specifically Chapter 3 of the HELAA document, Battle and surrounding settlements. P.31

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of land at Almonry Farm, North Trade Road. Site ID BAT0014

I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of houses in this location for the following reasons:

1.The area proposed for development lies within the High Weald AONB and any planned housing would cause significant damage to the immense biodiversity of the area which comprises of ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, meadows, ancient hedgerows/boundaries and habitats for endangered plants, fungi, birds, bats, reptiles and mammals. The infrastructure required to build 100 houses (sewers, piping systems, cables, foundations etc) would decimate the ecology of the site and endanger wildlife thus not fulfilling the National Policy of affording AONB sites ‘highest status of protection.’

2. 3.63 The NPPF specifically states that the scale and extent of development within an AONB should be limited and advises that planning applications for major development should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances. (p.60) Rother draft local plan 2020-40

The classification of a major development is 10 houses or more, this proposal is for 100 houses. Why? There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ of housing need in Battle. Several houses at Lillybank (most recent development) are unsold and now reduced in price. There are many family-sized homes currently for sale in Battle that have been advertised for 6 months + Added to this is the current development of the Blackfriars site which is for 200 houses.

3. Urban Sprawl. A poor decision on a planning application on this site (100 houses) could set a precedent for a pattern of development that could lead to massive expansion and exploitation of the site as it is over 18 hectares leading to urban sprawl.

4. Battle is a hugely important market town, home to one of the UK’s most important historical sites and brings thousands of visitors every year. Building over historic land would change the look and feel of Battle from a small town to a conurbation and a less attractive place to visit. This would have a direct impact on local businesses and the economy.

5. Viable farmland ruined. The site comprises of Grade A, viable farmland. It is currently used for livestock, haylage and hay. Building over this site would rob the opportunity of this area ever being farmed again thus demeaning food security.

6. Historic site decimated. The fields of Almonry farm were formerly part of Battle Abbey and are of historical importance. The fields, ancient woodland and hedgerows provide a green buffer between the town and Battle Abbey

7. Road. Battle High Street and North Trade Road are heavily congested and at times Battle High Street is gridlocked. North Trade Road and Battle Highstreet are ancient thoroughfares with many listed and Historically significant buildings. The traffic generated by 100 extra houses will put enormous pressure on the already strained road network and old buildings.

8. Infrastructure. What are the plans for extra school places? GP surgeries and dentists?

9. Access via Tollgates residential area is unworkable. The planned access road would put immense pressure on the small, residential road into Tollgates (an area which has just recovered from expansion). There is no junction capacity.

10. The proposed access road will bisect 2 buildings of historical importance via a residential garden. Almonry Farmhouse (a Grade 2 listed building) and Almonry Oast House. A substantial amount of mature trees and shrubs would have to be removed in order to build an access road.

11. There is significant surface water flooding across several areas of the proposed site, underground springs and streams. Any removal of woodland/shrubs will have a negative impact on the water table and clay soil with the potential to upheave homes.

12. The planned road would bisect a public footpath which is currently heavily utilised by the public and most especially the pupils of Claverham School and Battle Langton School as a safe route to school. A road bisecting the footpath would compromise the safety and independence of children travelling to and from school.

13. After the reneged promises of the developers at the current Blackfriars site and the inability of RDC to compel the developers to make good their promise of affordable housing and social housing it is clear there is absolutely NO appetite for any further large-scale housing developments in Battle.

https://www.rother.gov.uk/housing/housing-development/rother-dc-housing-company-makes-significant-progress-to-deliver-its-first-housing-scheme

14. The people of Battle are not NIMBY’s, moreover a concerned populace that believes their heritage and green future are at stake. The main tenet of the RDC draft development plan is ‘Green to the core.’

‘Green to the Core emphasises the need to consider the impact of our planning decisions on the climate emergency, biodiversity crisis and the High Weald National Landscape.’ Rother District Council’s draft Local Plan (2020 – 40).

RDC need to listen to the responses of this consultation and consider the implications for future generations, in a declining population, of the impact decisions today have on Battle’s Green future. There are other sites to consider that don’t choke the life out of Battle. Leave our precious AONB alone.

The snappy punchline of 'Green to the core' and 'Live well locally' is a bold attempt to show a commitment to protecting rural communities and local ecology but your HELAA land allocation of CAT0001 and potential site CAT0016 in Catsfield fly in the face of these claims/promises. The proposal of 60 new houses (some proposing to be built on protected AONB land) in this small rural village (doubling the size of the main village), is absolutely shocking and I object strongly to these sites being included for allocation in this plan. These proposals would not only destroy ancient woodland, biodiversity and protected wildlife habitats, they would also severely impact the lives of local residents with increased pollution and a serious decline in the already insufficient utilities and local infrastructure.
This site is also within a high flood risk area.
See further comments on HELAA Part 2 Chapter 3.

Catsfield site allocation CAT0001 (HELAA Identified) has recently had an outline planning application submitted and withdrawn before it was refused (Application RR/2019/257/P). Previous applications for much smaller developments on this site have also been rejected (Applications A/70/522 for one dwelling and A/70/526 for 3 dwellings). A FOI request made to RDC has revealed the planning officers final report recommending refusal for the most recent application of the proposed 35 dwellings (as identified and proposed by the HELAA) and other associated documentation, which showed some of the reasons for refusal. These should be reviewed and considered before finalising this future Local Plan and HELAA as they show that; - The site is actually not appropriate for development (it contravenes National and RDC's own policies). - Development of the site would cause a significant health, safety and wellbeing risks to local residents and the local community due to it being in a 'red zone' for flood risk, cause over population and cripple the already inadequate local infrastructure (highways, health provision, poor utility quality and provision, lack of education facilities in the village and surrounding area, etc). - 1.6 hectares is not adequate for a development of this size and does not meet planning guidance for density of development in a rural village location. - Development of the site would destroy the habitat of protected and endangered wildlife which currently resides there (as documented in the ecology report submitted to RDC planning dept). This site falls within the 'red zone' for Great Crested Newts and is home to a large number of protected and endangered species of wildlife, flora and fauna (inc bats, badgers, hazel dormice, etc). All of which are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, also making them European Protected Species. - The site falls within the High Weald AONB, which according to policy, can only be developed in 'exceptional circumstances'. This site and proposed number of dwellings does not fall within this caveat. The number of dwellings proposed for this site (35 dwellings) is classified in the planning documents as a 'Major development', which is not permitted within the HWAONB. - The site is subject to a blanket Tree Protection Order (TPO) and is adjacent to properties with listed status. These would all be severely impacted by any kind of development/construction on this site. - The northeastern boundary of the site falls within the Pevensey levels Hydrological Catchment and RAMSAR Area. - The Delegated Officer Report - Assessment of Case, should be referred to before finalising this draft Local Plan/HELAA and before any further consideration of the continued allocation of site CAT0001. The report's conclusion (and reasons for refusal of outline planning) states; - The proposal would cause significant harm to the local landscape character of the AONB and the rural settings of the nearby listed buildings. - The submitted information concerning the impact of the proposal on ecology and biodiversity and the proposed biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures are considered to be inadequate. - The proposed development of 35 dwellings by reason of its layout and scale and disregard to landscape features such as trees and road hedgerows would be out of character with the site and surrounding pattern of development and would materially harm the intrinsic character and appearance of the locality and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). As such, the proposal is contrary to policies OSS4, EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), policies DIM2, DEN1 and DEN2 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019), paragraphs 135, 136 and 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework and, Objectives S2, S3 and FH2 of the High Weald Management Plan. - It has not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with policy EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), policy DEN4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019) and, paragraphs 180 and 186 of the National Planning Policy Framework. - The proposed development (of 35 dwellings) due to inadequate drainage strategy and lack of flood risk management strategy for high groundwater could increase risk of flooding within site and elsewhere, contrary to policies EN6 and EN7 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and paragraphs 173 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The final paragraph states; - NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and looks for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Planning applications for other sites in Catsfield with the same features as this site (e.g. The Brooks) have been refused and the site deemed as unsuitable in the HELAA. This site should be assessed in the same way, deemed unsuitable for development for the same reasons and subsequently removed from the HELAA as an allocated site for development, as should site CAT0016 for the same reasons.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of land at Almonry Farm North Trade Road site ID BAT0014. I walk my dogs along this land and it is beautiful full of wildlife. Any housing development would cause terrible damage to ancient woodland, meadows, hedgerows, endangered plants and wildlife and would not fulfill the national policy of affording AONB sites with the highest status of protection.
This would amount to viable farmland being ruined.
These fields are of historic importance. Battle High Street and North Trade Road are unable to cope with current traffic and are in bad state of repair. No spare capacity at local schools or doctors or dentists. There is significant surface water flooding across several areas of the proposed site. The proposed access via Tollgates would put immense pressure on road that is already over burdened and blocked at school pick up times.

I am writing to formally object to the Rother Draft Local Plan reference number BAT00014, which concerns the proposed development on Almonry Farm. I strongly oppose this plan.

I have lived here for just over 7 months and I am finding the traffic very difficult to navigate. The high street is continually gridlocked at rush hour times. This interferes with my day every day as it is. The high street cannot accommodate even more traffic and I do fear for pedestrian safety at these times already, with the narrow nature of the paths.

The condition and quality of the roads along the high street and North Trade Road are extremely poor. These poor roads cannot accommodate the surge in traffic that a gigantic development will provide. I suggest the roads are considered before large developments are even proposed. What is the plan for this? Because current plans are not good enough.

The high street is supposedly cherished by the local council, but there is no thought to the large amounts of vehicles that travel through this daily and cause damage and pollution to our town. Where is the consideration of this?

I moved away from an area of high development due to the lack of infrastructure and the high volumes of traffic, just to be faced with the same situation here (and I have paid for the privilege). It is hard enough to get a GP appointment here, how will all these people be accommodated? There isn't even an NHS dentist that we can register at locally, so where will these people go?
I would not be opposed to a development outside of the high street area, but to do this where it is proposed is completely illogical and will ruin the town for many, plus harm the town.

I urge the council to reconsider this plan and protect the character and environment of our community.
Please confirm receipt of this objection and keep me informed of any further developments related to this application. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Far too much greenfield development is proposed and no consideration to the local amenity that will be lost.

BAT0026: AONB, Priority Habitat and a High Weald Wildflower Meadow. A development of this scale would inevitably cause significant harm to these valuable ecological features. With the inclusion of the Glengorse Estate, a recognized heritage asset, the proposed development would undermine the protections afforded to this important piece of local heritage


BAT0014: The suggested 100 houses is clearly a misprint or diversion as it massively breaches the density policy above. Furthermore the damage to the area by the proposal is hard to overstate:

Loss of Character: The proposed development would significantly alter the open character and natural beauty of the High Weald AONB and National Landscape, replacing historic fields with a large-scale housing estate. This would irrevocably damage the scenic value of this protected area, which is cherished for its rural charm and tranquility.

Harm to Landscape Setting: The development would encroach upon and disrupt the existing landscape setting, particularly the delicate balance between the built environment of Battle and the surrounding countryside. The introduction of a large number of dwellings would visually overwhelm the site and erode its natural appeal.
The construction of 100s of dwellings would undoubtedly impact views from surrounding hills and trails, diminishing the overall aesthetic quality of the High Weald.

Ancient Woodland Destruction: The proposed development would directly abut an area of ancient woodland, a rare and irreplaceable habitat that supports a wide range of flora and fauna. Construction and associated activities would inevitably cause disturbance, fragmentation, and potential loss of this critical ecosystem.

Habitat Loss and Degradation: The network of historic fields, mature trees, hedges, and pond within the site provide valuable habitats for various wildlife species including bats, deer and various birds. Development would lead to the destruction or degradation of these habitats, resulting in the displacement or loss of local biodiversity. The proposed access points both have a multitude of mature trees that will be felled or suffer severely damaged roots as a result of the proposed roads.

Proximity to Battle Conservation Area and Registered Battlefield: The site's proximity to these nationally important heritage assets raises concerns about the potential visual impact of the development. The large-scale nature of the proposal could detract from the historic significance and setting of these areas, compromising their cultural and historical value.

Impact on Grade II Listed Building: The construction of a vehicular access via Tollgates, as suggested in the plan, would directly affect the setting and visual integrity of the adjoining Grade II listed building. This could significantly diminish the historic value of the building and compromise its architectural integrity.

Surface Water Flooding: The site is already identified as being at risk of surface water flooding. Developing on this land would exacerbate this risk, leading to flooding of the development itself and causing problems for existing neighbouring properties. A large ancient oak at the top of the track (one of the proposed access routes) was removed a few weeks ago in readiness for this plan and more will need to be felled, creating further risks of flooding and heave to the local properties.

Strain on Infrastructure: A development of this size would place significant additional strain on local infrastructure, including the congested North Trade Road and High St.

Visual Dominance: The scale of the development would overwhelm the surrounding landscape, creating an imposing and incongruous feature that would detract from the rural character of the area.

Loss of amenity: the path way adjoining the plot along with Manser Shaw on the Western boundary and Saxonwood to the South are all regularly used by locals and tourists alike for rambling, dog walking and accessing the Abbey / High St. The proposed development will affect the enjoyment and amenity of the open space and will be detrimental to the physical and mental health of the residents.

I am concerned that the consultation of the Rother Draft Local Plan has been too complex and opaque for the average person who has little time to read through such detailed documents or to respond on such a technically difficult system. The consultation needs to be rerun in a clearer similar manner.

I am also writing to formally object to the Rother Draft Local Plan reference number BAT00014, which concerns the proposed development on Almonry Farm. I strongly oppose this plan for several reasons: – The area proposed is grade farming land full of a large range of rare and important fauna and flora including bats, newts, ancient trees and a very special green amenity space for the community. In addition, the local roads are already at breaking point with a very large secondary school listed as the access road and such numbers would completely change the character and community of this important historic town.

I urge the council to reconsider this plan and protect the character and environment of our community.
Please confirm receipt of this objection and keep me informed of any further developments related to this application. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I live at Asten Fields in Battle and would like to register my concern and dismay at the proposed potential new housing in the town.

I recently moved here and was drawn by the rural setting and the green space that surrounds Battle.

I am unhappy to hear that there may be housing behind where I live which is at the very bottom end of the road.

I have discovered that the farmer at the bottom of the private road behind my house has offered his land for sale for housing.

The disruption this will cause to an area of outstanding beauty, peace and calm will be horrendous.

Furthermore, attention needs to be directed to repairing the terrible state of the roads in and around Battle and the oversubscription of the local Doctors and other Services.

I would like to suggest that Public consultation is taken into consideration and the views of the local people before any work is considered And protest most strongly about this.

I strongly object to the proposed development of land at Almonry Farm, North Trade road. Site ID BAT0014.
My main reasons are:
- the are proposed is grade farming land full of a large range of rare and important fauna and flora including bats, newts, ancient trees and a very special green amenity space for the community.
- the local roads are already at breaking point with a very large secondary school listed as the access road and such numbers would completely change the character and community of this important, historic town. The high street is often gridlocked.
- the fields at Almonry Farm were formally part of Battle Abbey and are of historic importance.
- this number of additional housing would require additional infrastructure such as GP surgeries, dentists, schools, childcare provision.
- access via Tollgates is unworkable.
-the development would destroy the AONB.

This site BAT0014 is completely inappropriate for development and should be rescinded as an option immediately. It was not in The Neighbourhood Plan and is outside planning boundaries. Battle does not have roads/ infrastructure to support this site. It's former Battle Abbey Land and thus of huge historical significance. The site is currently home to a vast array of bio diversity including ancient hedgerows, woodland and endangered animals. It's a huge site (18 hectares) a poor decision on a planning application on this site (100 houses) could set a precedent for a pattern of development that could lead to massive expansion and exploitation of the site that would radically alter Battle as a historically important town and lead to urban sprawl.
It is an area Rother should consider in response to the “Call for Sites” extension which now includes sites for nature to meet Rother’s off-site Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.

I oppose this proposal. It is not part of the Neighbourhood Development plan and is outside the Planning Zone. It is also former Battle Abbey land and full of green space and trees. Also there is not enough services for existing residents for doctors etc let alone more people. The roads are in terrible condition and can’t support increased traffic. Please build on brown field sites and increase services beforehand.

I would like to voice my objection to the proposed Asten fields development. As we do not know the exact site whee the Battle of 1066 actually took place, its fair to assume this is part of the potential battle site. Development would a/ kill wildlife b/decimate ancient woodland c/cause years worth of traffic build up on an already overly congested road via North Trad Rd d/ increase pollution e/ruin an area of ONB e/ on a personal note we moved from Hawkhurst because of a local development of woodland which caused excess flooding where there was none before and completely ruining the area, so we moved to Battle, only to be faced with this diabolical site proposed for directly behind our house! Be warned, if this goes ahead, objection will be unlike anything Battle has ever seen.

The Woodland Trust objects to ancient woodland areas being included in sites allocated as suitable for development. Where development sites are adjacent to ancient woodland, we recommend that as a precautionary principle, a minimum 50 metre buffer should be maintained between a development and the ancient woodland.
The Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI) for the area may be incomplete. We therefore recommend an exercise to complete the ATI (which lists ancient, veteran and notable trees outside woods) across any sites allocated or proposed to be allocated for development, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 186c) for the protection of irreplaceable habitats.