Object to BT7 - 1. Access through Tollgate is impractical at best and would be dangerous for the current residents for the increase in traffic. Tollgates is already incredibly busy with cars and school children. There is often a queue to get on and off tollgates at school times, this then causes a backlog on North trade road. This is already a busy road that doesn’t need more traffic on it.
One point of access and exit for large number of residence is bad planning and likely to cause a number of access issues for road users.
It also makes tollgate a through road and changes area from being a quiet residential area to a main road.
The natural environment and the wildlife in the area will be disturbed and mostly destroyed. The impact on the wildlife after the houses are built will have a long standing effect, overall changing the natural beauty of Battle.

Battle is not a town to destroy with so many developments. Historic and green spaces. We are proud to live here. These houses are needed but not on the areas marked especially behind Asten Fields. Traffic is deadlocked now. With more housing it’s going to be a complete nightmare.

I am utterly dismayed to see that all except one of the proposed sites for development in Battle are greenfield not brownfield.
This is eating away at our small town and beautiful fields and greenery that currently exists. There has already been development in the town that is set ‘behind’ existing properties which means that more traffic joins an existing filter access road onto A roads.

What are the plans to build new schools, surgeries and dentists to accommodate the additional population that will arrive in Battle with these new developments? The infrastructure is not keeping pace with house building. Martin’s Oak surgery is already looking for alternative premises to expand, the Blackfriars site was always meant to have a new primary school built on site but isn’t going to, the A2100 is clogged and the High Street in particular is affected by the sheer number of vehicles using it and weight of heavy lorries.

Our small town is under threat from these proposed developments. Nearly all the proposed sites in Rye are on brownfield sites. Battle feels like the big loser in comparison.

I urge planners to reconsider these proposals for Battle.

I feel that to build the large housing estate, plan BT10, along the A2100 near Telham is completely unsuitable. I know I will be seriously affected but we already have problems getting on to the road at busy times and at 40mph can be quite dangerous. This will also lead to more development and ever closer to the fringes of Hastings.

BT6 The road going into Sunny Rise is narrow and there are often parked cars. The double yellow lines only extend just beyond the corner. By opening up the land at the back for house building will cause additional traffic especially during the building phase.The row of beautiful Scott’s pines are in need of examination as they are vulnerable in high winds. There is also a coniferous hedge which grows above legal height and needs constant trimming.

Object! BT10 &12
Once again will put a massive strain on all essential services in and around Battle when already
Struggling! With No contingency plans for these services within the planning or buildings going forward??
Generally people will still get in their cars than wait for unreliable transport services.
Greenfield sites will no longer exist! And the eco system will continue to decline! ☠️

Would the Area of outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) be declassified by the Council to ANOB???🤔

Battle Town Council has a number of concerns, which are not addressable within the 150 words permitted on this consultation, and will make a separate representation with regard to the individual proposed sites.

Re: Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy BT1, BT8, BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)

We are writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. As residents of Hastings Road, we have direct, daily experience of the site conditions. This development is unsupportable based on material planning considerations, the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024/25 (and the subsequent 2025/26 updates regarding National Decision-Making Policies).

1. Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road

Hastings Road (A2100) is already at breaking point. Traffic is backed up every morning and evening, creating a bottleneck that cannot accommodate the additional vehicle movements generated by a minimum of 250 new dwellings (sites mentioned above). The Battle Neighbourhood Plan (Battle NP) explicitly identifies traffic congestion as a critical weakness of the parish. Adding a major junction to this existing chaos without significant infrastructure upgrades is negligent.

Junction Interference and "Staggered" Conflict: At a distance of less than 200 metres, these two major junctions will interfere with one another. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) will frequently be blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). This creates a high risk of "rear-end" collisions and "side-swipe" accidents as drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span.

The 30mph to 40mph Transition Danger: The sites sit at a critical transition point where the speed limit increases from 30mph to 40mph.
● Acceleration Risk: Vehicles traveling outbound (towards Hastings) are legally accelerating exactly where the BT1 entrance is proposed.
● Braking Distance: Vehicles entering the 30mph zone from the south (inbound) often carry higher speeds before decelerating.

Placing two high-volume junctions in a high-speed transition zone is fundamentally unsafe. The NPPF Paragraph 115 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users." Given the topography and speed transition here, this requirement cannot be met.

2. Environmental Impact and Air Quality

Unjustified Harm to the National Landscape (AONB) and Greenfield Land:
● Greenfield Loss: BT1 proposes building on 11.09 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly contradicts the Battle NP's vision to prioritise brownfield sites and protect the countryside.

● National Landscape (AONB) Impact: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). Under NPPF Paragraph 190, National Landscapes are afforded the highest level of protection. A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is urban, not rural, and is entirely out of keeping with the character of the High Weald. Major development should only occur in exceptional circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 189).

● Wildlife and Trees: The proposal threatens "fields, paddocks" and "High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat". The construction of a minimum of 250 homes will inevitably sever wildlife corridors and destroy hedgerows, regardless of "buffer zone" promises.

Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF Paragraph 170): The policy text for BT1 explicitly acknowledges a "surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site". Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (housing/roads) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that endangers existing properties downhill, contradicting NPPF Paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.

3. Infrastructure Deficits and Delivery Failures

Critical Lack of Infrastructure (GP, Dentistry, Schools): The town lacks the capacity to support this population increase. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management)
● Medical: East Sussex is currently facing a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices are similarly reporting "increasing demand" and workforce challenges that make appointments difficult to secure.
● Schools: The Council’s own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools" and implies a reliance on "active travel" which is unrealistic given the topography and traffic conditions.
● Precedent: We have seen this failure before. The Blackfriars development was approved with promises of infrastructure that have been slow to materialise or insufficient.

The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments:
We have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. That development was sold as a "gold standard" of green, high-tech housing. However, documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent "redesign" to "better align with market demand" and "improve efficiencies" due to rising costs. If the flagship Blackfriars project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led masterplan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.

Conclusion:

This proposal expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further.

We are writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. As residents of Glengorse, we have direct, daily experience of the site conditions. This development is unsupportable based on material planning considerations, the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024/25 (and the subsequent 2025/26 updates regarding National Decision-Making Policies).

1. Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road

Hastings Road (A2100) is already at breaking point. Traffic is backed up every morning and evening, creating a bottleneck that cannot accommodate the additional vehicle movements generated by a minimum of 250 new dwellings (sites mentioned above). The Battle Neighbourhood Plan (Battle NP) explicitly identifies traffic congestion as a critical weakness of the parish. Adding a major junction to this existing chaos without significant infrastructure upgrades is negligent.

Junction Interference and "Staggered" Conflict

At a distance of less than 200 metres, these two major junctions will interfere with one another. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) will frequently be blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). This creates a high risk of "rear-end" collisions and "side-swipe" accidents as drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span.

The 30mph to 40mph Transition Danger

The sites sit at a critical transition point where the speed limit increases from 30mph to 40mph.

• Acceleration Risk: Vehicles traveling outbound (towards Hastings) are legally accelerating exactly where the BT1 entrance is proposed.
• Braking Distance: Vehicles entering the 30mph zone from the south (inbound) often carry higher speeds before decelerating.

Placing two high-volume junctions in a high-speed transition zone is fundamentally unsafe. The NPPF Paragraph 115 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users." Given the topography and speed transition here, this requirement cannot be met.

2. Environmental Impact and Air Quality

Unjustified Harm to the National Landscape (AONB) and Greenfield Land

• Greenfield Loss: BT1 proposes building on 11.09 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly contradicts the Battle NP's vision to prioritise brownfield sites and protect the countryside.
• National Landscape (AONB) Impact: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). Under NPPF Paragraph 190, National Landscapes are afforded the highest level of protection. A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is urban, not rural, and is entirely out of keeping with the character of the High Weald. Major development should only occur in exceptional circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 189).
• Wildlife and Trees: The proposal threatens "fields, paddocks" and "High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat". The construction of a minimum of 250 homes will inevitably sever wildlife corridors and destroy hedgerows, regardless of "buffer zone" promises.

Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF Paragraph 170) The policy text for BT1 explicitly acknowledges a "surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site". Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (housing/roads) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that endangers existing properties downhill, contradicting NPPF Paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.

3. Infrastructure Deficits and Delivery Failures

Critical Lack of Infrastructure (GP, Dentistry, Schools) The town lacks the capacity to support this population increase. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management)

• Medical: East Sussex is currently facing a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices are similarly reporting "increasing demand" and workforce challenges that make appointments difficult to secure.
• Schools: The Council’s own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools" and implies a reliance on "active travel" which is unrealistic given the topography and traffic conditions.
• Precedent: We have seen this failure before. The Blackfriars development was approved with promises of infrastructure that have been slow to materialise or insufficient.

The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments

We have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. That development was sold as a "gold standard" of green, high-tech housing. However, documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent "redesign" to "better align with market demand" and "improve efficiencies" due to rising costs. If the flagship Blackfriars project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led masterplan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.

Conclusion

This proposal expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of site BT1 and the adjacent sites BT8 and BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle).

As a resident of Hastings Road, I experience the conditions here on a daily basis. In my view, this proposal is unsustainable and conflicts with both the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (including the most recent updates relating to National Decision-Making Policies).
________________________________________
1. Traffic Congestion and Road Safety
Hastings Road (A2100) is already operating beyond reasonable capacity. Morning and evening congestion regularly results in long queues and stationary traffic. Introducing at least 250 additional dwellings across these sites will inevitably generate a significant increase in vehicle movements, placing further strain on an already failing stretch of road.

The Battle Neighbourhood Plan clearly identifies traffic congestion as a key weakness in the parish. It is therefore difficult to understand how allocating a development of this scale — without substantial and guaranteed infrastructure upgrades — can be justified.

Of particular concern is the proximity of the proposed junction for BT1 to the existing Blackfriars access. The two access points would be less than 200 metres apart. In practical terms, this means turning vehicles for BT1 are highly likely to be obstructed by traffic queuing at Blackfriars. This creates obvious risks of rear-end shunts and side-impact collisions as drivers attempt to negotiate two major junctions in quick succession.

The location is further compromised by the change in speed limit from 30mph to 40mph at this point on the road. Vehicles travelling outbound towards Hastings are accelerating precisely where the proposed entrance would be located, while vehicles travelling inbound often decelerate late when entering the 30mph zone. Placing two significant access points within this speed transition zone presents clear and foreseeable safety risks.

Paragraph 115 of the NPPF requires that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. Given the topography, traffic volume and speed transition at this location, I do not believe this requirement can realistically be met.
________________________________________
2. Environmental Impact
Impact on the High Weald National Landscape:
The site lies within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB), which is afforded the highest level of protection under national planning policy. Paragraph 190 of the NPPF is clear about the great weight that must be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in such areas.

BT1 proposes development on approximately 11 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly conflicts with the vision of the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, which prioritises brownfield development and countryside protection. A density of around 40 dwellings per hectare is urban in character and wholly out of keeping with the rural landscape of the High Weald.

Major development in a National Landscape should occur only in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional justification has been convincingly demonstrated.

Loss of Habitat and Landscape Character:
The proposal would result in the loss of fields, paddocks and areas identified as High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat. Regardless of proposed buffer zones, development on this scale will inevitably fragment wildlife corridors and remove established hedgerows. The cumulative impact on biodiversity should not be underestimated.

Surface Water and Flood Risk:
The policy text itself acknowledges surface water flooding risk along the southern boundary of the site. Replacing natural, permeable fields with housing and road infrastructure across 11 hectares will inevitably increase surface water runoff.

Paragraph 170 of the NPPF emphasises the importance of ensuring development is appropriately flood resilient. Proceeding with large-scale development on land already identified as having surface water issues risks exacerbating problems for existing properties downhill and fails to demonstrate a precautionary, climate-resilient approach.
________________________________________
3. Infrastructure Capacity
Battle does not currently have the infrastructure capacity to support a development of this scale.

National policy (including NPPF paragraphs 20 and 35) requires Local Plans to identify and secure the infrastructure necessary to support development — including education, healthcare, transport and utilities.
• Healthcare: East Sussex is widely reported to be facing significant pressure on NHS dental provision, with many practices not accepting new patients. GP surgeries are similarly stretched, with increasing demand and ongoing workforce challenges.
• Education: The Council’s own supporting text notes that the site is some distance from primary schools and suggests reliance on “active travel”. Given the topography and existing traffic conditions on Hastings Road, this does not appear realistic or safe.

There is a clear risk that housing delivery will proceed in advance of meaningful infrastructure provision.
________________________________________
4. The Blackfriars Precedent
Confidence in delivery is further undermined by the experience at the nearby Blackfriars development. That scheme was promoted as a flagship, high-quality and sustainable development. However, it subsequently faced a significant funding shortfall and underwent redesign to align with market pressures and rising costs.

If such compromises occurred on a flagship scheme, it is reasonable to question whether the landscape-led aspirations for BT1 would ultimately be maintained once permission is secured. There is a genuine concern that commitments made at plan stage could be diluted at delivery stage.
________________________________________
Conclusion
In summary, this proposal seeks to allocate 250 dwellings on Greenfield land within a protected National Landscape, in an area already experiencing significant traffic congestion and infrastructure pressure.

From my direct experience as a local resident, the road network is already under strain, local services are stretched, and the environmental sensitivity of the site is obvious. The proposal conflicts with the principles of the Battle Neighbourhood Plan and raises serious concerns under national planning policy.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Council to reconsider and remove development pressure from this area before progressing the Local Plan further.

Re: Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy BT1, BT8, BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)
Date: 17.02.26

We are writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. We are residents of Harold Terrace and are right next to the Blackfriars developments. We feel this further proposed development is unsupportable based on material planning considerations, the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024/25 (and the subsequent 2025/26 updates regarding National Decision-Making Policies).

1. Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road
The Battle Neighbourhood Plan (Battle NP) explicitly identifies traffic congestion as a critical weakness of the parish. Adding a major junction to this existing traffic congestion without significant infrastructure upgrades is negligent.

Junction Interference and "Staggered" Conflict At a distance of less than 200 metres, these two major junctions will interfere with one another. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) will frequently be blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). This creates a high risk of "rear-end" collisions and "side-swipe" accidents as drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span.

The 30mph to 40mph Transition Danger The sites sit at a critical transition point where the speed limit increases from 30mph to 40mph.
• Acceleration Risk: Vehicles traveling outbound (towards Hastings) are legally accelerating exactly where the BT1 entrance is proposed.
• Braking Distance: Vehicles entering the 30mph zone from the south (inbound) often carry higher speeds before decelerating.
Placing two high-volume junctions in a high-speed transition zone is fundamentally unsafe. The NPPF Paragraph 115 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users." Given the topography and speed transition here, this requirement cannot be met.

2. Environmental Impact and Air Quality

Unjustified Harm to the National Landscape (AONB) and Greenfield Land
• Greenfield Loss: BT1 proposes building on 11.09 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly contradicts the Battle NP's vision to prioritise brownfield sites and protect the countryside.
• National Landscape (AONB) Impact: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). Under NPPF Paragraph 190, National Landscapes are afforded the highest level of protection. A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is urban, not rural, and is entirely out of keeping with the character of the High Weald. Major development should only occur in exceptional circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 189).
• Wildlife and Trees: The proposal threatens "fields, paddocks" and "High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat". The construction of a minimum of 250 homes will inevitably sever wildlife corridors and destroy hedgerows, regardless of "buffer zone" promises.

Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF Paragraph 170) The policy text for BT1 explicitly acknowledges a "surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site". Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (housing/roads) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that endangers existing properties downhill, contradicting NPPF Paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.

3. Infrastructure Deficits and Delivery Failures
Critical Lack of Infrastructure (GP, Dentistry, Schools) The town lacks the capacity to support this population increase. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management)
• Medical: East Sussex is currently facing a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices are similarly reporting "increasing demand" and workforce challenges that make appointments difficult to secure.
• Schools: The Council’s own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools" and implies a reliance on "active travel" which is unrealistic given the topography and traffic conditions.
• Precedent: We have seen this failure before. The Blackfriars development was approved with promises of infrastructure that have been slow to materialise or insufficient.

The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments We have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. That development was sold as a "gold standard" of green, high-tech housing. However, documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent "redesign" to "better align with market demand" and "improve efficiencies" due to rising costs. If the flagship Blackfriars project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led masterplan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.

Conclusion
This proposal expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further.

I am writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. As residents of Hastings Road, we have direct, daily experience of the site conditions. This development is unsupportable based on material planning considerations, the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024/25 (and the subsequent 2025/26 updates regarding National Decision-Making Policies).

Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road

Hastings Road (A2100) is already at breaking point. Traffic is backed up every morning and evening, creating a bottleneck that cannot accommodate the additional vehicle movements generated by a minimum of 250 new dwellings (sites mentioned above). The Battle Neighbourhood Plan (Battle NP) explicitly identifies traffic congestion as a critical weakness of the parish. Adding a major junction to this existing chaos without significant infrastructure upgrades is negligent.

Junction Interference and "Staggered" Conflict At a distance of less than 200 metres, these two major junctions will interfere with one another. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) will frequently be blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). This creates a high risk of "rear-end" collisions and "side-swipe" accidents as drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span.

The 30mph to 40mph Transition Danger The sites sit at a critical transition point where the speed limit increases from 30mph to 40mph.

• Acceleration Risk: Vehicles traveling outbound (towards Hastings) are legally accelerating exactly where the BT1 entrance is proposed.
• Braking Distance: Vehicles entering the 30mph zone from the south (inbound) often carry higher speeds before decelerating.

Placing two high-volume junctions in a high-speed transition zone is fundamentally unsafe. The NPPF Paragraph 115 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users." Given the topography and speed transition here, this requirement cannot be met.

1. Environmental Impact and Air Quality

Unjustified Harm to the National Landscape (AONB) and Greenfield Land

• Greenfield Loss: BT1 proposes building on 11.09 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly contradicts the Battle NP's vision to prioritise brownfield sites and protect the countryside.
• National Landscape (AONB) Impact: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). Under NPPF Paragraph 190, National Landscapes are afforded the highest level of protection. A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is urban, not rural, and is entirely out of keeping with the character of the High Weald. Major development should only occur in exceptional circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 189).
• Wildlife and Trees: The proposal threatens "fields, paddocks" and "High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat". The construction of a minimum of 250 homes will inevitably sever wildlife corridors and destroy hedgerows, regardless of "buffer zone" promises.
Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF Paragraph 170) The policy text for BT1 explicitly acknowledges a "surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site". Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (housing/roads) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that endangers existing properties downhill, contradicting NPPF Paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.

2. Infrastructure Deficits and Delivery Failures

Critical Lack of Infrastructure (GP, Dentistry, Schools) The town lacks the capacity to support this population increase. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management)

• Medical: East Sussex is currently facing a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices are similarly reporting "increasing demand" and workforce challenges that make appointments difficult to secure.
• Schools: The Council’s own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools" and implies a reliance on "active travel" which is unrealistic given the topography and traffic conditions.
• Precedent: We have seen this failure before. The Blackfriars development was approved with promises of infrastructure that have been slow to materialise or insufficient.

The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments We have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. That development was sold as a "gold standard" of green, high-tech housing. However, documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent "redesign" to "better align with market demand" and "improve efficiencies" due to rising costs. If the flagship Blackfriars project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led masterplan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.

Conclusion

This proposal expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

Please see individual responses and attachment for comments on the proposed sites in Battle Civil Parish.

We are writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. We are residents of Hastings Road and have direct experience of the site conditions. This development is unsupportable based on material planning considerations, the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024-25 (and the subsequent 2025-6 updates regarding National Decision Making Policies).

1. Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road
Hastings Road (A2100) is incredibly busy. Traffic is constantly gridlocked especially mornings and evenings. It would be impossible to accommodate the additional traffic from the proposed 250 dwellings and the traffic coming from the new Blackfriars development. The two entrances to these developments are barely 200 metres apart. This is unsafe and there will clearly be a high risk of accidents. The NPPF paragraph 15 states that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved by all users. This will be impossible to meet.

2. Environmental and Ecological Impact
The proposed site is within the High Weald National Landscape designated as AONB and is protected by law to conserve and enhance its natural beauty. BTI proposes building on 11.09 hectares of greenfield land contradicting the BNP’s intention to prioritise brownfield sites and protect our countryside.
The proposal threatens fields,paddocks and the High Weald Wild Flower Meadow Priority Habitat. The construction of at least 250 homes will obviously destroy wild life meadows and hedgerows. It will most certainly not enhance the natural beauty and the distinctive historic character of the area.

Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF paragraph 170) The policy text for BT1 acknowledges ‘a surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site’. Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (roads/ housing) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that will endanger existing properties downhill, contradicting the NPPF paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.

3. Infrastructure
The town of Battle is not large enough to support such a large increase in population. There are not sufficient schools, doctors or dentists for this proposed new development, let alone the soon to be increased population from the Blackfriars development.

The Blackfriars Precedent ‘Watered Down’ Commitments
We have no confidence in the ‘policy compliant’ assurances for BT1 as we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. The development was sold as a ‘gold standard’ of high tech, green housing. However documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent ‘redesign’ to ‘better align with market demand’ and ‘improve efficiencies, due to rising costs. If this Blackfriars flagship project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led master plan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.

Conclusion
This development expands development to 250 homes on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further.

Objection to proposed allocation policy BT1, BT8, BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)

We are writing to formally object to the current and any future revisions for this development, where the number of properties exceeds the pre-agreed number of 15 properties on the following basis:

1. Ecology - The existing water table is struggling to meet the existing demands of the area, where we face regular hose pipe bans & other water restrictions
2. Water pipe infrastructure – there have been many cases over the last few years of burst mains pipes. Adding 250 new homes will cause additional & avoidable stress to this aging pipe architecture that will be further strained when the Blackfriars development comes online
3. Public services infrastructure – the local services do an outstanding job, the roads are already overwhelmed & in a terrible state of repair where adding yet more houses will make the current critical situation untenable.
4. National Landscape (AONB) – The Council are legally empowered by Government with a duty of care for its preservation with current and future generations. Any expansion above the agreed 15 properties, in whole or in part of such proposals, is a serious dereliction of this duty
5. The failings of the Blackfriars development have demonstrated a constant lack of accountability in managing substantial projects in terms of project costs, project overruns and constantly changing project scope . These proposals are for an even larger project, where there is zero framework to ensure any previous lessons learnt will not be repeated, coupled with a clear established path of financial and legal accountability should such problems ever be repeated again.
6. Commercial viability – property prices are declining, the cost of building materials and labour are increasing, let alone the prospect of increased unemployment. There is an overwhelming risk this project will become yet another white elephant & burden to the taxpayer in an area with limited well paid jobs when compared to those nearer to London.

Conclusion – this proposal is completely unsound in any shape, form or reduction, given its blatent disregard to long standing established statutory environmental policies

Whilst modest development is acceptable, I request the Council reconsider such plans represent a serious blot on the landscape.

It is neither in the best interests of the Country nor its existing residents who have chosen its charm to live here, not see it destroyed.

Consequently, I strongly request the Council make it their highest objective to always assign any such mass development to an area outside those designated as an AONB, both in this and any other future proposal.

I am writing to object to the proposed allocation BT10 in the draft Rother Local Plan.

BT10 is a greenfield site, forming part of the open rural landscape that contributes to the character and setting of Battle. Developing this land would result in the permanent loss of countryside, contrary to the Local Plan’s stated aim of prioritising brownfield development and protecting the High Weald AONB.

The site plays an important role in the semi‑rural approach into Battle and the wider setting of the historic 1066 battlefield. Development here would erode the town’s distinctive character and diminish the sense of arrival that is central to Battle’s identity.

As a greenfield location, BT10 supports established hedgerows, mature trees, and wildlife habitats. The ecological information provided does not demonstrate that biodiversity can be protected or that meaningful net gain can be achieved. The loss of habitat would be significant and irreversible.

There are also serious concerns regarding highways and access. The surrounding road network already experiences congestion and safety issues at peak times. Additional vehicle movements from this site would worsen these problems, and no robust mitigation strategy has been presented.

The site’s topography raises questions about surface water run‑off and downstream flood risk. It has not been demonstrated that sustainable drainage can be delivered without increasing risk elsewhere.

Local services—including healthcare, schools, and utilities—are already under pressure. The plan does not provide clear, deliverable commitments to expand capacity in line with the additional demand BT10 would generate.

Finally, the Council must show that all reasonable alternatives have been assessed. There are other sites within the district that present fewer environmental and infrastructural constraints. BT10 has not been shown to be the most sustainable or appropriate option.

For these reasons, I believe BT10 is unsound, failing the tests of justification, effectiveness, and consistency with national policy. I respectfully request that it is removed from the Local Plan or fundamentally reassessed.

Policy BT1, BT8 BT10 - Draft Local Plan

I write with regards the Proposed Development on the Greenfield land south of Hastings Road

I wish to raise my strong objections to these proposed plans for following reasons:

As a resident of an area that has been directly impacted by Rothers building development in Blackfriars, that has been a complete disaster from the word go, due to many years of noise, dust, failed building contractors, disregard for the nature it has ruined, overrunning of promised timescales etc, to even consider another huge housing development so close to this, is quite frankly ridiculous

There has been no thought of the impact on yet another area of outstanding natural beauty. We residents already have 200 + houses in Blackfriars still under construction which took valuable greenspace, and Rothers plan to do the same again with this latest suggestion of 250 dwellings is ignoring the AONB. 15 homes was what Battle Neighbourhood Plan suggested, but this is seemingly being ignored

The traffic chaos that would be caused by having entrance at BT1 so close to Blackfriars has not been thought out

We have to wait over 3 weeks to get a GP appointment now, and dentists can't take anymore new patients. There were no plans put in place for the 200 + houses at Blackfriars, and none guaranteed for this latest plans. The infrastructure cannot cope in Battle

Schools. We only have one Primary and Secondary. Both are overstretched. No plans have been submitted to allow for more pupils.

The loss of wildlife habitats and increased surface water flooding risks for properties downhill

Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy BT1, BT8, BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)

We are writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. As residents of Hastings Road, we have direct, daily experience of the site conditions. This development is unsupportable based on material planning considerations, the democratically adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024/25 (and the subsequent 2025/26 updates regarding National Decision-Making Policies).

1. Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road

Hastings Road (A2100) is already at breaking point. Traffic is backed up every morning and evening, creating a bottleneck that cannot accommodate the additional vehicle movements generated by a minimum of 250 new dwellings (sites mentioned above). The Battle Neighbourhood Plan (Battle NP) explicitly identifies traffic congestion as a critical weakness of the parish. Adding a major junction to this existing chaos without significant infrastructure upgrades is negligent.

Junction Interference and "Staggered" Conflict At a distance of less than 200 metres, these two major junctions will interfere with one another. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) will frequently be blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). This creates a high risk of "rear-end" collisions and "side-swipe" accidents as drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span.

The 30mph to 40mph Transition Danger The sites sit at a critical transition point where the speed limit increases from 30mph to 40mph.
- Acceleration Risk: Vehicles travelling outbound (towards Hastings) are legally accelerating exactly where the BT1 entrance is proposed.
- Braking Distance: Vehicles entering the 30mph zone from the south (inbound) often carry higher speeds before decelerating.

Placing two high-volume junctions in a high-speed transition zone is fundamentally unsafe. The NPPF Paragraph 115 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users." Given the topography and speed transition here, this requirement cannot be met.

2. Environmental Impact and Air Quality

Unjustified Harm to the National Landscape (AONB) and Greenfield Land
- Greenfield Loss: BT1 proposes building on 11.09 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly contradicts the Battle NP's vision to prioritise brownfield sites and protect the countryside.
- National Landscape (AONB) Impact: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). Under NPPF Paragraph 190, National Landscapes are afforded the highest level of protection. A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is urban, not rural, and is entirely out of keeping with the character of the High Weald. Major development should only occur in exceptional circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 189).
- Wildlife and Trees: The proposal threatens "fields, paddocks" and "High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat". The construction of a minimum of 250 homes will inevitably sever wildlife corridors and destroy hedgerows, regardless of "buffer zone" promises.

Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF Paragraph 170) The policy text for BT1 explicitly acknowledges a "surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site". Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (housing/roads) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that endangers existing properties downhill, contradicting NPPF Paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.

3. Infrastructure Deficits and Delivery Failures

Critical Lack of Infrastructure (GP, Dentistry, Schools) The town lacks the capacity to support this population increase. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management)
- Medical: East Sussex is currently facing a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices are similarly reporting "increasing demand" and workforce challenges that make appointments difficult to secure.
- Schools: The Council's own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools" and implies a reliance on "active travel" which is unrealistic given the topography and traffic conditions.
- Precedent: We have seen this failure before. The Blackfriars development was approved with promises of infrastructure that have been slow to materialise or insufficient.

The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments We have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. That development was sold as a "gold standard" of green, high-tech housing. However, documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent "redesign" to "better align with market demand" and "improve efficiencies" due to rising costs. If the flagship Blackfriars project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led masterplan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.

Conclusion

This proposal expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further.

Site Location Plan: BT4, Land at Caldbec House, Caldbec Hill.
This site is an area of national historic interest, important to the history of 1066 and the whole of England, It is very shortsighted to build on our heritage, we should always try to use use brownfield sites first. Much of this rother plan is building on greenfield sites - when we are in the High Weald National Landscape and should be trying to protect our nature.

BT2
The proposed development south of the A2100 faces significant environmental and strategic hurdles. Key objections include:
Ecological Damage: Expert assessments warn of likely harm to the Marline Valley Woods SSSI, ancient woodlands, and priority habitats. Extensive, years-long monitoring is still required to prove any mitigation is even possible.
Landscape Loss: The project threatens the High Weald National Landscape and violates a Strategic Gap designed to prevent the merging of Crowhurst, Battle, and Hastings.
Unsustainability: The Rother portion is physically isolated and "unsustainable" without adjacent Hastings land. It lacks safe pedestrian access, as the A2100 is dominated by high-speed traffic and inadequate footways.
Physical Risks: Unresolved issues regarding surface water flooding and land stability on sloping terrain further undermine the site’s suitability.
Ultimately, the development represents an unjustified encroachment into sensitive countryside.