We do not consider the Council has identified all possible opportunities within Sedlescombe. Land north of Brede Lane, Sedlescombe is assessed in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (April 2024) under reference SED0032. In summary it is identified as ‘not suitable’ on the grounds of landscape impact and accessibility. We do not consider this assessment to be correct and ask the Council to reconsider this site as a housing allocation.

Location and Surroundings

The site occupies approximately 2.8 hectares and is situated to the east of Sedlescombe with access from Brede Lane. The site is currently an agricultural field bounded by woodland and hedgerow. The site lies to the north of East Terrace View which forms the settlement edge of Sedlescombe.

In response to the HELAA assessment we have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the site and this is attached as a separate document. This assessment has carefully considered the site within its landscape context and its capacity to accommodate development.

At this stage an indicative masterplan has been prepared in order to illustrate the type and scale of development envisioned on site. A range of homes would be delivered, with a balance of tenures and sizes to meet local needs, whilst respecting the character of the local vernacular. The proposals work with the typography of the site and the surrounding character to provide a sensitive small scale development of 35 to 40 dwellings.

The proposal would protect the adjacent woodlands by providing a generous offset in excess of 15m. The topography of the site results in a low density scheme allowing for generous areas of open space as well as green and blue infrastructure providing opportunities for onsite biodiversity net gains and landscaping.

A well connected network of routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles will link to the existing network of footpaths to the north. It will connect onto Brede Lane to provide the necessary connections to services and public transport, encouraging healthy lifestyles and sustainable travel.

Landscape
According to the HELAA, development at the scale considered through the HELAA would be harmful to the landscape and character of the National Landscape and rural setting of the village. LDA Design has considered the ability of the site and its surroundings to accommodate new residential development, identified where opportunities and constraints exist from a landscape/visual perspective, and how potential impacts could be minimised through a sensitive design response. Consequently, the landscape strategy prioritises preserving and enhancing existing vegetation onsite, ensuring the new development integrates within its surroundings. Particular attention would be given to parts of the site that contain key landscape features or are more visible from the site’s surroundings, ensuring the development can be well integrated. Longer range views are expected to be limited and where visible, the proposed development will appear as part of the broader settlement.

Therefore, it is considered that the site can readily accommodate a sensitively designed development whilst respecting the wider countryside setting without harm to landscape visual impact.

Access
The HELAA raises accessibility as a further constraint. It concludes the site is some distance from services within the village and accessed via a narrow part of Brede Lane. We disagree with this conclusion. There is a continuous footpath which runs along Brede Lane providing access to the village and public transport links. The recently consented scheme immediately to the south of this site (RR/2022/2619) for 21 units proposed some improvements to footpath links along Brede Lane and was found to be acceptable by both the LPA and the Highway Authority.

In summary, it has been demonstrated that the site represents a viable and sustainable location for developments in transport planning terms.

Ecology
There are no ecological constraints on site which would prevent the site from being developed. Nevertheless the necessary ecological surveys will be carried out at the appropriate time and will inform an ultimate planning application on the site. The illustrative proposals include significant areas of open space providing opportunities for the provision of the necessary onsite biodiversity net gains.

The site can provide a suitable and sensitive small scale development on the edge of a sustainable village. Catesby Strategic Land Ltd have a legal interest in the site and this reflects the landowner’s willingness to make the land available for development. There are no known viability issues, legal or third-party constraints present and there are no impediments to the site being allocated for development commencing early within the Plan period.

Ref BAT0014

Dear sirs,

I write to you as a resident of Asten Fields. I have lived in total nearly 40 years of my life on Asten Fields and over 50 living in Battle.

I am very concerned and wish to register my opposition to this part of the Draft Plan on the following grounds.

Drainage - current drainage systems can’t cope and there are already issues on a regular basis with the stream in Mansers Shaw. Asten Fields struggles with water supply and waste water network due to the age of the pipes. Emergency repairs regularly carried out but no plans for complete system renewal.
There will be trees and wildflowers that will be lost this will hinder the drainage of site.

Infrastructure - an urgent survey should be carried out to assess the impact on the towns’ local services. There is already huge strain on the local GP service, Dentists and local schools this is before the much delayed development of Blackfriars has been completed. There is dwindling support locally from the Police, the local stations’ hours have been decreased which has lead already to an increase in anti social behaviour locally.

Affordable - housing needs to be provided for young Battle residents/starter homes and not to end up like the current fiasco that is the Blackfriars development.

Roads - the local road infrastructure is currently in very poor repair and has been for some time now. Asten Fields receives regular patching with no re-surfacing programmed. North Trade Road has been patched and is currently awaiting full repair. The road simply cannot cope with any more traffic it is already at standstill at certain points of the day.

Access - the access points suggested for this site are not feasible and very poorly thought out.

The site is in the immediate vicinity of a site of huge historical importance not only locally but nationally, this could be forever lost and damaged if any development was allowed on this site.

I would like to submit my response to Q.64 of The Draft Rother Local Plan 2020-40 P.145.

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.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

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.

Q64. Site ID BAT0014

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

The area proposed for the development is in the High Weald ANOB and this would cause irreparable damage the biodiversity of the area. The NFPP states that “Developments within an ANOB should be limited and major developments should be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances.

There are no such circumstances in Battle, there have been several recent large developments in Battle and some houses have still not been sold, additionally there a further 200 houses to be built on the Blackfriars site.

With this increase in population in Batlle there appears to be no increase in provision for Doctor or Dentist surgeries nor any provision for an increase in school places; Claverham Community College has just finished a complete rebuilding yet there was no provision for an increase in pupils.

Battle is a popular destination for tourists, and this proposed development would build over historic land and change the feel of the area which would affect the number of tourists coming and thus the local Economy.

The roads proposed for access to this development are not suitable and one of the roads would cross a footpath that is heavily used by students of Claverham and Battle and Langton Schools.

The main Tenet of the RDC draft local plan is “Green to the Core”, this proposed development goes completely against this.

Q2. Council feels that both are key to our Community with equal priority.

Q24. Clarification of "all qualifying development" is sought.
Council would like to prevent pre-emptive works at sites prior to submission of planning applications.

Q28. Agree the principle but very hard to visualise dwellings per hectare. Particularly when looking at rural areas.
Examples in our location would be helpful ie number of properties in Coronation Gardens per hectare, for example.


Q30. Whilst we feel this is a positive ambition, this may be impracticle for a town such as Battle.

Q33. In agreement with proposals, but clear access must be available. Blackfriars access to Battle Railway Station is a point in case of outside site access.

Q34. Council should make developers responsible for access outside site compulsory.

Q35. Applaud this objective but would once again highlight the Blackfriars development not having easy access to the Railway Station which would make walking outside of this 400m proposal.

Q39. This is an important policy and Council would like this enforced. However, it is disappointing that the Blackfriars development has not been approved in accordance with existing Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan policies.

Q46. Council feels that consideration should be to all disabilities, not only dementia sufferers; such as less ambulant people and those with hearing difficulties etc.
In relation to play areas, these should be sited in an appropriate safe, central location.

Q64. The topography of the central area of Battle town does not lend itself to significant further dwellings to be developed within the development boundary.
There may be very small opportunties for developments outside the development boundary but within the 800m constraint.
Broadly speaking, the number of dwellings suggested seems to be most unachievable.
During the development of the Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan, despite calls for employment opportunity developments, there was only one response.

Q74. These policies should be strictly adherred to, to protect the environment.

Q75. Subsequent to this Reg 18 document, Council would like to emphasise that the "Fir Tree Cottage" site at Netherfield only has temporary permission for three years and must be returned to agricultural use.

Q76. We do not agree that Battle is placed in the "Greater opportunities for growth" column in figure 35. In main part due to the topography of the Civil Parish and, at best, should be placed in the "Medium growth opportunities".
We are pleased to see that Mountfield and Whatlington in our SDO have been recognised in the column "Limited growth opportunities".

Q104. We welcome this policy.

Q116. For planning applications where affordable housing is approved, following applications to change the conditions will be greatly deplicated.

Q119. Council does not agree with this policy. There should be a mix of housing - 'pepperpotting'.

Q121. We do not wish to see this, as above.

Q183. LAN3 paragrpah 3 should have roof lights added as an example of discouraged glazing.
Planning applicants should be encouraged to use electrochromic glass.

I am writing to formally object to the Rother Draft Local Plan reference number BAT0014, which concerns the proposed development on Almonry Farm.

I strongly oppose this plan for several reasons.

• The area proposed lies within the High Weald AONB. This means that no development should take place due to the damage this would cause to the ecology and environment of the area.

• Only in exceptional circumstances is it permitted to allow planning to proceed. Where are these exceptional circumstances? The government will always be asking us to allow more house building. It is not an exceptional request.

• The site already suffers from significant water flooding. Building more houses will make this worse as the increased concrete on the land will cause rainwater to run off down the slope to the stream below, causing the stream to flood and surrounding land to become boggy. This will degrade the farming land and destroy the existing ecosystems.

• We do not need another boggy site like Blackfriars which is causing so many problems that it remains undeveloped.

• This plan ignores the fact that 200 houses will eventually be built a Blackfriars, and existing new houses at Lilly Bank have not yet been sold - even at their reduced prices.

• Where is the infrastructure to support an extra 200 cars and four hundred people? The Drs surgeries are full and so are the dentists. The primary school is full too.

• Traffic along the pothole ridden High Street and North Trade Road is so high it is often grid locked. We don't need more cars making it worse.

• Almonry Farm House (Grade 2 listed) and Almonry Oast House would have to be demolished to make way for the access road. Historic houses should be protected not demolished!

• What Battle needs is social housing but this never gets built, only more expensive executive houses.
I urge the council to reconsider this plan and protect the character and environment of our community.

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 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 see attached submission.

Please see the attachment from The Asten Fields Residents Association in direct response to the Draft Local Plan 2020 – 2040 and in reference to the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) document, specifically BAT0014.

Please see attached document for comments regarding:

- Constraints to further development in Catsfield
- HELAA site CAT0029 – Church Road
- HELAA site CAT0001 – R/O White Hart land
- HELAA site - CAT0016 – Wilton House Equestrian Centre land (actually part of the Normanhurst Estate).

Please see attached document for comments regarding:

- Constraints to further development in Catsfield
- HELAA site CAT0029 – Church Road
- HELAA site CAT0001 – R/O White Hart land
- HELAA site - CAT0016 – Wilton House Equestrian Centre land (actually part of the Normanhurst Estate).

Please see attached document for comments regarding:

- Constraints to further development in Catsfield
- HELAA site CAT0029 – Church Road
- HELAA site CAT0001 – R/O White Hart land
- HELAA site - CAT0016 – Wilton House Equestrian Centre land (actually part of the Normanhurst Estate).

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached documents containing from Wates Developments containing:
1) The Consultation Response;
2) A Vision Document for HELAA Site BAT0014: Land at
Almonry Farm, North Trade Road, Battle; and
3) A Transport Note for HELAA Site BAT0014.

Objection to Draft Local Plan to Build on Armonry Farm BAT0014

Please see full submission attached.

I strongly object to the proposed development at Almonry Farm site ID BAT0014 because:

1. Within High Weald AONB casuing disaster to natural habitats and ancient woodland (NPPF)*.

2. The infrastructure or the local community, schools, roads, flooding.

3. The proposed land is currently used for farming!

4. Not just schools, what about doctors, dentists, already at capacity!

5. Battle Highstreet is an absolute nightmare already, how can the town cope with more traffic and building works.

6 Blackfiars development has been a standing joke, even contractors are dismayed, BATTLE DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT

Extremely disappointing to see potential sites that may be allocated, but others that have been discounted and yet you still haven't identified enough potentially developable housing sites...

These larger scale developments are ruining villages, but as usual it's the big developers that benefit, but smaller land owners who would actually design and develop properties in a way that would take into consideration land characteristics have been overlooked yet again.

The site assessments are contradictory... how can you potentially consider one site that is within the AONB, has a Grade II Listed building nearby and historic field boundaries and yet discount another site that has the same or similar environmental constraints (ref CAT0016 & CAT0012 as below)?

I would welcome comments on the following sites:

• CAT0016 – Considered a Potential Site:
Summary of Environmental constraints - This site is within the High Weald National Landscape. It is adjacent to the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment and a small area of surface water flooding affects the western section of the site. There is a Grade II Listed building nearby. The site is bounded and intersected by historic field boundaries. A public right of way runs adjacent to the site.

• CAT0012 – Rejected Site:
Summary of Environmental constraints - This site is within the High Weald National Landscape. There is a historic field boundary to the north. Listed building opposite to the south-west.

How can you consider one site for a larger number of houses and reject the other for a smaller number of houses, with both having the same environmental constraints? If anything CAT0016 has more site constraints and has single access to the site.

CAT0012 would have been developed in a way that took account of the AONB and wouldn’t have affected any field boundaries and certainly would not have impacted on the listed building opposite in Church Lane. The 1st paddock is within the centre of the village, has good connections to the local amenities. The site is relatively well screened from the wider AONB and yet you say:

“a development at the scale considered through the HELAA would be out of keeping with the established and historic settlement pattern of the village and would appear as an encroachment beyond the ribbon development fronting Church Lane, highly visible from the lane and having an urbanising impact, harming the rural character of this part of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape”.

How can a development of up to 5 well designed properties (similar to approved application RR/2019/271/P) be of scale out of keeping with the established and historic settlement pattern of the village? This was referenced in our HELAA application. The development wouldn’t be highly visible from Church Lane as it would be mostly screened from the existing properties in Church Lane and would be as close to the existing development boundary as possible without significantly impacting upon those properties, one of which (Spring Cottage) being ours.

With reference to Potential Site CAT0029 – this is a flood plain and unless I’m mistaken this is considered a “major site constraint” so how is this even being considered?

I am at a loss how you are not even considering CAT0012 when you have put forward CAT0016 and CAT0029 as potential sites and given their site constraints and would welcome the opportunity for CAT0012 to be reconsidered, given your position as not having identified enough developable housing sites.