My understanding is that to date the Council has got nowhere near achieving building 495 dwellings annually so this seems a farcical proposal. I perceive one major problem as being developers’ preference for building larger executive housing on which they can make more money, irrespective of whether or not it meets the needs of the local population.

Question 2 - Housing Target for the Local Plan
Position
HGPC has significant concerns about how the district-wide housing target of 8,427 dwellings is being
translated into settlement-level allocations. The target itself may or may not be justified at the district
level - but that is a separate question from whether specific villages have been allocated appropriate
shares of that growth based on local evidence.
The Parish Council's concern is not with the principle of planning for housing growth. It is with the
absence of any demonstrable link between the district-wide target and the scale of growth directed at
Hurst Green. A district-wide number is a starting point for spatial planning, not an end in itself. The
task is to distribute that growth based on the sustainability credentials and evidence of need for each
settlement. The community’s own Neighbourhood Plan Vision is explicit on what housing in Hurst
Green should achieve: the Parish will “support sustainable and sensitive housing development that
enables us to deliver on our vision and objectives, developing the facilities that are needed to address
the current and future needs of our community.” A proposal for 185 dwellings that is unsupported by
local evidence, directed at a location without the facilities to support it, and in conflict with the
community’s own planning framework is not sustainable and sensitive development. It is the opposite.
The Distribution Process
For Hurst Green, the distribution process has produced a result that cannot be reconciled with
evidence-based planning:
• The housing requirement increased by 487% in six months - from 38 dwellings in the Summer
2024 consultation to 185 dwellings in the January 2026 draft - with no published settlement
specific justification.
• The AECOM Housing Needs Assessment (2019) and parish-level survey work identify need at a
materially lower level, and that need has already been met by extant permissions.
• No settlement-level assessment has been published that explains why Hurst Green - a village
with no GP surgery, no secondary school, no supermarket, limited other facilities, over 90% car
dependency, and a documented highway safety crisis - has been identified as a location for
growth on this scale.
A district-wide housing target does not, of itself, provide the evidence base required to allocate a
specific quantum of development to a specific settlement. That requires local evidence. In the case of
Hurst Green, that evidence does not exist and has not been published. The proposed housing
requirement of 185 dwellings is therefore not justified regardless of the district-wide target, and the
allocation of Site HG4 is not justified regardless of the housing requirement.
Conclusion on Question 2
HGPC requests that the Council publishes the settlement-level evidence underpinning the allocation
of 185 dwellings to Hurst Green before the Regulation 19 stage. In the absence of such evidence, the
Local Plan cannot be considered sound in respect of its distribution of growth within the Northern
Rother sub-area.
Suggested Modifications
The following modifications are suggested to render this aspect of the plan sound:
Amendment 2 - Revision of Housing Requirement for Hurst Green
Suggested Modification
Delete the housing requirement of 185 dwellings for Hurst Green.
Replace with:
2
“Housing provision for Hurst Green will be proportionate to the settlement’s role, function, and
constraints, and will be based on robust, up-to-date, settlement-level evidence of local housing need.
Committed development (HG1 and HG2) will be credited against any revised requirement.”
Reason: The increase from 38 to 185 dwellings has no published evidential basis. The current figure
creates legal and examination risk.
Consequence if unmodified: The plan contains a housing requirement that is not evidence-based,
creating a clear point of failure at Examination and generating continued pressure for unsuitable
allocations.

I appreciate the need for some housing but the amount proposed is far too many for our area.
Battle is consistently brought to a halt due to the amount of traffic going through the town and to build even more homes will make the situation even worse.
There has been no real affordable housing for the local residents in the last 20 years that I’ve lived here and I know that the homes are filled by people from outside of the area.
No thought has been made to increase the infrastructure in the area. This should go hand in hand in any housing development.
Our roads can’t cope now and the schools, doctors, dentists etc are already struggling to cope or have long waiting lists. Therefore to add more housing, without the proper infrastructure is utter madness.

I do not support more housing being built.
A. Our infrastructure won’t take anymore.
b. The roads are in a terrible state and are gridlocked at peak hours.
C.There are not enough doctors and dentists to accommodate more people.
d. The schools are overcrowded.
E . We do not have enough water, take last year when the hosepipe ban was introduced. It has only been about a month, even though we have had one of the wettest winters, that the ban was lifted. With people wanting to shower everyday, washing machines and
dishwashers going, there definitely won’t be enough water.
The south east used to be a lovely area to live, now it is just a rat race and getting anywhere is almost impossible.

Broadly agree that we need more housing in Battle. BUT the type needs to be addressed. What is the need locally? There has not been a housing needs survey in Rother since 2005. Not convinced that the New Standard Method accounts for affordability. Affordability should be based on local salary rather than national trends. House prices are too high for many so a different calculation is required. We should engage local objectors in deciding where housing should go rather than seemingly foisting it upon them. Nobody wants any more 4 bed executive homes. We need creative options from CLTs to self builds to modular that cater for all needs including disabled, retired, single people and families.

How many houses will be built in Peasmarsh in the next 10 years? It is not clear. The RDC local plan says 143 houses will be built in Peasmarsh - this is far too many considering that there are currently only between 500 and 600 houses here now. This is a 20-25% increase in what is a relatively small village, which is outrageous.

Concerned that the number of houses proposed has been applied inappropriately to some rural areas.
Burwash comprises of medieval ridgetop buildings within a conservation area, steep valley sides with superb, distant views across the weald to the north and towards the coast to the south, along with areas of remoteness and tranquillity. It is one of the best remaining examples in northern Europe of a medieval landscape with a well preserved historic field system. The requirement to increase the housing stock by around 7% through estate and ribbon development is not considered appropriate on the scale suggested in the draft Plan.
The most recent housing developments in the parish have failed to sell. Some of the former are being rented out to Councils outside both the district and the county which does nothing to address local rural housing needs.

Where are the plans to upgrade / improve and expand the infrastructure such as schools and doctors in the area that this amount of new housing / influx of people to the town would require? None!

I am writing to submit my formal objection to the proposed Rother Local Plan 2025–2042. As a resident of Battle, I am deeply concerned that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of growth that will irreparably damage the historic character, landscape integrity, and infrastructure of our market town.
My specific objections, referenced by the relevant consultation questions, are outlined below:
Q2: Proposed Housing Target (Policy 3.24 / Figure 2)
I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.
The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

Q8: Overall Development Strategy and the High Weald National Landscape
The strategy to focus growth within the High Weald National Landscape contradicts the Council’s duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty. While the plan refers to prioritising brownfield land, the proposed allocations rely heavily on greenfield development.
The justification that housing need constitutes “exceptional circumstances” for major development in a protected landscape is not convincing. This approach risks eroding the distinct character of Battle and surrounding settlements.

Q36: Proposed Site Allocations in Battle (Policies BT1 to BT11)
Objection to Site BT1: Land south of Hastings Road, Battle
I strongly oppose the allocation of this site for 220 dwellings.
• Traffic and safety: Additional access onto the A2100 and surrounding roads will worsen congestion and increase accident risk.
• Density: A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate for this rural edge-of-town location.
• Environmental impact: The proximity to ancient woodland and priority habitats means development would cause significant ecological harm.

Objection to Site BT7: Land at Almonry Farm, Battle
I object in full to the proposed development of this site for 80 dwellings.
• Heritage impact: The site lies close to the 1066 Battlefield and Battle Abbey, and development would harm their setting.
• Listed buildings: The proposals would negatively affect the setting of the Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse.
• Landscape and biodiversity: The site contributes significantly to the character of the area and supports valuable habitats.
• Flood risk: Development may increase surface water runoff and exacerbate local flooding.
• Safety concerns: Increased traffic near busy junctions and disruption to footpaths used by Claverham students raises additional risks.

Conclusion
The Council must reconsider this scale of development. Our National Landscape and historic heritage should be protected for future generations, not compromised by unsustainable housing targets. I urge the Council to remove sites BT1 and BT7 from the Local Plan

The Parish Council is concerned that the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings (495 per annum) is not supported by credible delivery evidence. Historic completion rates within Rother have averaged approximately 200 dwellings per annum over a sustained period. No clear trajectory has been presented demonstrating how delivery will increase to more than double this rate.
Without such evidence, the Plan risks failing the soundness test of effectiveness (NPPF paragraph 35), as it is unlikely to be deliverable over the plan period.
Furthermore, approximately 92% of the District lies within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL), where there is a statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to conserve and enhance landscape character. Inflated housing targets risk driving unnecessary allocations within protected landscapes.
The Parish Council recommends that the housing requirement be reassessed using a realistic delivery-based approach that properly reflects environmental constraints.

Whilst we understand the need for housing, if the target can only be met through the allocation of unsuitable sites, most relevant to us around Battle, then the number should be reduced - or redistributed to other non-AONB locations- Indeed, this major expansion of Battle can be seen in comparison to other similar settlements within or partly within AONB locations in neighbouring emerging plans (for example Wadhurst 114 new homes proposed- Heathfield (which is larger than Battle)- 300 odd - The numbers is they are reliant on the destruction of AONB and historic setting of Battle, then it should be reduced- see separate letter

With 90% of Rother as protected landscape, we think this figure is too high. A genuine housing needs assessment needs to be carried out and evidenced to the inspector.

I understand the imperative the council is under to fulfil the quota set by national government and that Rother has decided that is unachievable and has reduced the number to what it believes may be achieved but this is still too high for local conditions. Rother needs housing that meets the need of local people and those who would move into the area to work a huge ask in an area where we have high housing costs and low wages. Additionally, in local villages, infrastructure is poor, non car transport links abysmal. services, where they exist are high cost.

I do not support this as I can not see that building 143 new homes is anyway going to benefit the residents of peasmarsh. It will put in major disruption and the economy and already stretched services would disintegrate leaving everyone worse off. Plus the effect on the environment and the nature wildlife and green space that I came here to enjoy for my mental health and sanity.

While TW recognise that there are national constraints affecting the District, on the basis of NPPF 2024, it is not considered appropriate to proceed with a Local Plan that seeks to identify only enough land to meet 54% of the standard method requirement. In this regard, the Council will be aware of the recent correspondence (February and March 2026) from Minister of State for Housing and Planning to the Leader of Three Rivers District Council that states (underlining is our emphasis):
February:
“As I set out in my letter to you of 14 November, I expect Three Rivers to bring forward a plan that meets identified need as far as possible; that reflects national policy, including in relation to Green Belt release; and that is capable of being found sound at examination.
As it stands, your emerging plan proposes to meet only 56 per cent of the local housing needs identified by the standard method, leaving a shortfall of over 5,000 dwellings, with little explanation publicly available to justify this approach.
Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) requires local planning authorities to only submit a plan when they think it is ready for an independent examination. …. I have little confidence that your emerging plan is satisfactory and capable of being found sound or legally compliant at examination. In light of this I have decided to exercise the Secretary of State's powers to direct Three Rivers not to take any step in connection with the adoption of the Plan, while I consider whether to give a direction in relation to the Plan under section 21 of the 2004 Act.”
March:
“Having reviewed the draft plan alongside the additional evidence you provided, it is my considered opinion that the Regulation 19 draft plan approved for consultation at the Full Council vote on 27 January has not engaged sufficiently with the concerns I have conveyed to you.
It is my firm view that the available evidence demonstrates that the Council’s Regulation 19 draft plan fails to propose allocating all appropriate housing sites available that could contribute towards meeting housing need. The Council are therefore proposing a plan which is highly likely to be found unsound at examination.
Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the intervention criteria are met, and that intervention is justified. Pursuant to the powers in section 21 (1)(a) of the 2004 Act I am directing the Council to: 1. make modifications to your proposed Regulation 19 plan to include, as a minimum, the sites set out below lifting the requirement to approximately 85% of need…”

On this basis, to avoid a similar outcome, TW consider that the Council must look harder to find additional sites to get closer to meeting the standard method requirement. In this regard, TW would acknowledge the Council’s view that the search for land should “not preclude new development in the National Landscape”.

TW note that the Council is continuing to engage with neighbouring authorities to establish whether all or part of Rother’s unmet needs can be accommodated in areas outside of the district. However, the Council state that “our understanding is that there are no neighbouring local planning authorities currently in a position to accommodate any unmet needs arising in Rother” and TW would concur with this view. As a consequence, Rother Council must do more to identify further sites for housing in their Local Plan.

In saying that, Rother should also take a sensible and pragmatic view as to the scale of development that can be realistically (having regard to the market) accommodated on both greenfield and brownfield sites. It will not be appropriate to assume that significant densities can be achieved on these sites, if the market will not support that.

Further, as the Council will be aware, planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. Planning policies should identify a supply of: specific, deliverable sites for five years following the intended date of adoption; and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for the subsequent years 6-10.

In this regard, it is also noted that “at this stage in the Local Plan process, a detailed trajectory, illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the period of the new Local Plan, has not yet been produced”. TW recognise that this is because further work needs to be undertaken with landowners and infrastructure providers in order to determine realistic delivery rates and inform a detailed trajectory to be included at submission (Regulation 19) stage. TW would emphasise the importance of ensuring that this work is undertaken thoroughly and robustly to seek to achieve a Plan that is Sound.

Subject: Formal Objection to the Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 (Regulation 18 Consultation)

To the Planning Strategy Team,

I am writing to submit my formal objection to the proposed Rother Local Plan 2025–2042. As a resident of Battle, I am deeply concerned that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of growth that will irreparably damage the historic character, landscape integrity, and infrastructure of our market town.

My specific objections, referenced by the relevant consultation questions, are outlined below:

Q2: Proposed Housing Target (Policy 3.24 / Figure 2)
I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.

The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

Q8: Overall Development Strategy and the High Weald National Landscape
The strategy to focus growth within the High Weald National Landscape contradicts the Council’s duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty. While the plan refers to prioritising brownfield land, the proposed allocations rely heavily on greenfield development.

The justification that housing need constitutes “exceptional circumstances” for major development in a protected landscape is not convincing. This approach risks eroding the distinct character of Battle and surrounding settlements.

Q36: Proposed Site Allocations in Battle (Policies BT1 to BT11)

Objection to Site BT1: Land south of Hastings Road, Battle
I strongly oppose the allocation of this site for 220 dwellings.

Traffic and safety: Additional access onto the A2100 and surrounding roads will worsen congestion and increase accident risk.

Density: A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate for this rural edge-of-town location.

Environmental impact: The proximity to ancient woodland and priority habitats means development would cause significant ecological harm.

Objection to Site BT7: Land at Almonry Farm, Battle
I object in full to the proposed development of this site for 80 dwellings.

Heritage impact: The site lies close to the 1066 Battlefield and Battle Abbey, and development would harm their setting.

Listed buildings: The proposals would negatively affect the setting of the Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse.

Landscape and biodiversity: The site contributes significantly to the character of the area and supports valuable habitats.

Flood risk: Development may increase surface water runoff and exacerbate local flooding.

Safety concerns: Increased traffic near busy junctions and disruption to footpaths used by Claverham students raises additional risks.

Conclusion
The Council must reconsider this scale of development. Our National Landscape and historic heritage should be protected for future generations, not compromised by unsustainable housing targets. I urge the Council to remove sites BT1 and BT7 from the Local Plan.

Battle's infrastructure is not capable of supporting this many new dwellings. With just one main high street that is congested many times a day this will have a negative effect on vehicle pollution and residents health. The suggested improvements that Blackfriars would bring have not come to fruition and doctors surgeries and schools will very soon become over subscribed.

Whilst the increased housing requirement, and especially the objective of meeting over 5000 new homes over the plan period by site allocations is a step change in the present level of delivery in Rother, the proposed housing requirement is barely over 50% of the housing need within the area. As we set out in our response to the spatial strategy, there is a considerable capacity within designated areas of the district, if assessed carefully on a site specific basis. We would recommend a greater analysis of land in the Hastings Fringe as well as consideration be given to upping the density that can be brought forward on those sites that are being proposed for allocation. Planning for such a substantial under-delivery against need is not encouraging, especially when other districts in the HMA are also constrained.

Having looked at the supporting documents it seems RDC planning team don't understand Harvard referencing, that the referenced document needs to be linked, not a link back to a RDC statement of fact without evidence. I don't understand how a group of well paid, university educated people can make such awful decisions, but if you never have to give supporting evidence it makes more sense, RDC just making stuff up as per usual. I don't understand how all the documents haven't been read before being published, unless they've been produced by a LLM.

The whole consultation has been a shambles, without input from demographics that work and live in Rother (the consultation was aimed at those in retirement, that need to downsize, not the family homes proposed), no attempt at making this consultation accessible to those that don't have internet access, no attempt for those that are blind.

That almost all of the proposed sites have a significant flood risk that is not being mitigated. There is absolutely no evidence that the developments would be for the communities benefit although this is quoted multiply times, I need facts not made up assumptions.

To the Planning Strategy Team,

I am writing to submit my formal objection to the proposed Rother Local Plan 2025–2042. As a resident of Battle, I am deeply concerned that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of growth that will irreparably damage the historic character, landscape integrity, and infrastructure of our market town.

My specific objections, referenced by the relevant consultation questions, are outlined below:

Q2: Proposed Housing Target (Policy 3.24 / Figure 2)
I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.

The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

Q8: Overall Development Strategy and the High Weald National Landscape
The strategy to focus growth within the High Weald National Landscape contradicts the Council’s duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty. While the plan refers to prioritising brownfield land, the proposed allocations rely heavily on greenfield development.

The justification that housing need constitutes “exceptional circumstances” for major development in a protected landscape is not convincing. This approach risks eroding the distinct character of Battle and surrounding settlements.

Q36: Proposed Site Allocations in Battle (Policies BT1 to BT11)

Objection to Site BT1: Land south of Hastings Road, Battle
I strongly oppose the allocation of this site for 220 dwellings.

Traffic and safety: Additional access onto the A2100 and surrounding roads will worsen congestion and increase accident risk.

Density: A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate for this rural edge-of-town location.

Environmental impact: The proximity to ancient woodland and priority habitats means development would cause significant ecological harm.

Objection to Site BT7: Land at Almonry Farm, Battle
I object in full to the proposed development of this site for 80 dwellings.

Heritage impact: The site lies close to the 1066 Battlefield and Battle Abbey, and development would harm their setting.

Listed buildings: The proposals would negatively affect the setting of the Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse.

Landscape and biodiversity: The site contributes significantly to the character of the area and supports valuable habitats.

Flood risk: Development may increase surface water runoff and exacerbate local flooding.

Safety concerns: Increased traffic near busy junctions and disruption to footpaths used by Claverham students raises additional risks.

Conclusion
The Council must reconsider this scale of development. Our National Landscape and historic heritage should be protected for future generations, not compromised by unsustainable housing targets. I urge the Council to remove sites BT1 and BT7 from the Local Plan.

The document does not properly assess the impact of new developments within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL). Houses in the HWNL should only be built on existing brown/grey field sites and kept to an absolute minimum

The target appears reasonable when taking into account the demographic changes in Rother. However, many of
the proposed sites are scattered, selective, and appear to have been chosen primarily based on availability. A
significant number of these locations are not sustainable, making reliance on private motor vehicles almost inevitable.

This number is not attainable within the High Weald where many villages have infrastructure already at capacity. I am concerned that with relaxations in the Nppf the housing produced will meet developers wishes rather than actual need

Too high. New homes should be kept to a minimum.

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 My concerns about the local strategy
with regards to Peasmarsh developments is that it meets the requirements of social having, however other local villages have not been developed as much as Peasmarsh and as a result, Peasmarsh has been identified for development and expansion with no consideration for other areas.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No 2
The proposed development plan is mixed as it does not reflect a balanced view of the Rother District in its entire scape. In addition, with regards to Peasmarsh, the infrastructure: the area does not meet present needs and flooding, pot holes, outages and problems with flooding only exacerbated with more dwellings.

PART 2 Chapter 3 No 3
Employment is important but is met in Rye itself, local hotels and restaurants and Jempsons itself. Building more homes, will then expand more shops and retailing in the future that then takes away the character of the village, to just find land to build, which is not a responsible use of planning or resources.

PART 2 CHAPTER 4
It is good to see that Rother are making plans for the future, however with regards to-the social and critical infrastructure ie bus stops, with the homes and temporary accommodation proposed in the village and is PE5, will be offset with increased impact an policing, social care, doctors, and maintenance and upkeep due to excessive use of roads ie more potholes as well as the demographics of the village and available school spaces and resources.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7
My concern with the local plan, is it is not feasable both in respecting nature, environment and also the very essence of the village. The clientel or the size of PE5 goes against regulation of planning in addition and key to all given the Unitary authority proposals, it seems rushed through with no active consultation understanding especially PE5. It cannot protect and enhance of deciduous woodland due to felling and effect on environment.

PART 3 CHAPTER 6 NO.13
Concerns above, but in addition the impact on natural and economic and housing strategy for the area. as well as present area not meeting the needs of flooding, excessive housing, basic infrastructure already strugging to cope. Adapting an approach already imposed will also put strain on further Services ie education, policing etc already not being met.

PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
I do not believe that other areas have been considered in neighbouring villages and that Peasmarsh becomes an expensive area and loses its character in addition proposals for the village particularly PE5, does not take into account present under usage of the business units and do not allow for parking, further exhausted resources both natural, employment etc. By having similar focus as in other villages and areas mean that employment and resources are evenly spread OUT and also with the move to a super-council, would it not better for further ideas and consultation after re-organisation of local government has been need and local elections taken place ie after May 2026 elections as this is also move ethical and political
minded in the sense takes in the needs and wants of constituents council planning. I appose the plans.
PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No. 47
I am concerned with Rothers considerations and plans for Peasmarsh would-it not be further local Parish council then the issues raised an your site is not democratic but autocratic. Unless people are made aware publically and meetings arranged how can open and meaningful conversations take place. The area of the Maltings is beautiful but does not take into account two car families. As a result the new development of social and part owned part rent previously constructed have lack of parking and regularly block the highway. The proposed extension the Business path and to allocation of flats as the hectorage means that here are no guarantees that present problems, lack of parking, lack of resources ie maintenance of present social having by Sothern Housing and other Housing Associations as well as consider areas over criminal activities, draining critical resources like education and need for more teacher, buildings etc. as well as poor sewerage, increased lighting etc. my wary is that Peamarsh will become an area that destroys the community and the very beauty and heart of the village, something that has not ben taken into consideration.

I would propose a feasibility study drawn up with the Parish council and locals and to offer other suggestions such as neighbouring areas such as Beckley and other neighbouring villages, where resources and facilities are not in one area and meet the needs of all.

I am writing to submit my formal objection to the proposed Rother Local Plan 2025–2042. As a resident of Battle, I am deeply concerned that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of growth that will irreparably damage the historic character, landscape integrity, and infrastructure of our market town.

My specific objections, referenced by the relevant consultation questions, are outlined below:

Q2: Proposed Housing Target (Policy 3.24 / Figure 2)
I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.

The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

Q8: Overall Development Strategy and the High Weald National Landscape
The strategy to focus growth within the High Weald National Landscape contradicts the Council’s duty to conserve and enhance natural beauty. While the plan refers to prioritising brownfield land, the proposed allocations rely heavily on greenfield development.

The justification that housing need constitutes “exceptional circumstances” for major development in a protected landscape is not convincing. This approach risks eroding the distinct character of Battle and surrounding settlements.

Q36: Proposed Site Allocations in Battle (Policies BT1 to BT11)

Objection to Site BT1: Land south of Hastings Road, Battle
I strongly oppose the allocation of this site for 220 dwellings.

Traffic and safety: Additional access onto the A2100 and surrounding roads will worsen congestion and increase accident risk.

Density: A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate for this rural edge-of-town location.

Environmental impact: The proximity to ancient woodland and priority habitats means development would cause significant ecological harm.

Objection to Site BT7: Land at Almonry Farm, Battle
I object in full to the proposed development of this site for 80 dwellings.

Heritage impact: The site lies close to the 1066 Battlefield and Battle Abbey, and development would harm their setting.

Listed buildings: The proposals would negatively affect the setting of the Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse.

Landscape and biodiversity: The site contributes significantly to the character of the area and supports valuable habitats.

Flood risk: Development may increase surface water runoff and exacerbate local flooding.

Safety concerns: Increased traffic near busy junctions and disruption to footpaths used by Claverham students raises additional risks.


The Council must reconsider this scale of development. Our National Landscape and historic heritage should be protected for future generations, not compromised by unsustainable housing targets. I urge the Council to remove sites BT1 and BT7 from the Local Plan.

Question Number 1: Not seen
Question Number 2: This is a village - I do not want Peasmarsh to become a town
Question Number 5: Schools? Doctors? Clinics? etc.
Question Number 6: Yes we don't want any of it.
Question Number 13: No Comment
Question Number 47: Flats and work shops - big no no. Maltings has already lost old folks home to houses. Flats to close to houses in Maltings.
Question Number 67: Not seen.

PART 1 CHAPTER 2 The local strategy does not reflect
the needs of local employment needs nor does it meet the needs of local residents due to lack of paring, road infrastructure and basic needs such as sewage etc. Expansion of services and business unite and flats will in the aesthetics of the village as well as an increase and effect as the already research business in the local area.

PART 2 CHAPTER 3 No.3
The problems I have is meeting the needs of my own business such as affordable premises but move importantly parking and access. The proposal for PE5, adds to that need with less parking. Poor road maintenance. Lack of parking leads to less customers in the demographics of the over, Most businesses are self employed so the need to have customers is important due to the very nature of business. In addition less customers will mean employer leave the village, meaning an any benefits. Equally the expansional the premises presently not only reduces aesthetics natural light and neighbourhoods which are the draw of the village If you as
a local government had same concerns would you build n your local area?

PART 2 CHAPTER 4 My concern is with regional resources. Due to its demographics and location as increase in village population to 147 names plus flats per hectarage which is ambiguous, means a drain of social and healthcare, education, refuse, policing and fire with an increase in social housing less employable adults available meaning less council tax and funding for infrastructure.

PART 3 CHAPTER 5 No 7 I do not believe in reading your
rational that the proposed business unit expansion helps the load, nature and environment leading problems.

CHAPTER 6 No 13 PART 3 CHAPTER 7 No.52
In adding the ambiguous language of 'Hectarage' with the super council proposals for East Sussex leaves it operated the expansion and possible loss of woodland protected areas and name another advanced in general. The checks
in those properties will they require have parking and how will this be net? Leading to less paring blight are the landscape and problems with road maintenance as well as blocking emergency vehicle access. The present problems with upkeep of the social housing and lack of parking has already led to problems in the area. PE5 is not right for the area.

1.
I am not sure of the relevance ROTHER Rather’s Local Plan since it will cease to exist in the next few years so question the validity of the proposals contained therein.
2.
I am concerned that the numbers do not reflect local needs and the proposed sites do not appear to meet the needs of local people on limited incomes and I do not agree with these figures as they do not appear to be evidence based.
5.
There is no evidence of any infrastructure being proposed or included in the planning – schools, transport, Dr’s surgeries, traffic flow – just houses in a village that is already in need of transport, Dr surgeries & improved management of traffic flows.
9.
This is a “vision” not a place, and for this reason I would not support as there is no reality check.
13.
For reasons & accuracy of wording point out with reference to 6.76 that there are not pavements on both sides of Main Street running the full length – has anyone actually tried to walk up Main…?
13.
Noted it is a vision and no indications of planning to make this reality.
47.
The site allocations in Peasmarsh do not take into account the long‑standing concerns which have already been well‑documented and evidenced regarding drainage – properties are still not connected to the main sewers and flooding is commonplace and has still not been resolved – the power supply is not reliable and drops in pressure / power cuts are frequent.
The infrastructure cannot support the crushing population. SE Water has evidence of leaks / frequent (issues) so I don’t understand why they are supporting.
The other major concern is the effect on traffic from the increased traffic on to Main Street. The emphasis on walking, cycling and the reduction of the bus service from April means that these policies are now becoming exclusive rather than inclusive – people with disabilities, the elderly & other residents currently are beginning to feel shut in and this has the ongoing effect on their mental wellbeing.
The pedestrian exit on to Main Street is currently in private ownership?!

See attached representations in response to questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 47, 67, 68 and 69.