It has been brought to my attention that you are proposing to build houses on land immediately behind my house, on land which belongs to Almonry Farm (BT7).

This land is currently waterlogged and the latest families of newts are just being born. Because it is so wet, it would be totally inappropriate for it to be built on as the runoff would then cause flooding to other parts of Battle. I do not say this as a result of anyone writing reports, any idiot can see its a daft place to build, especially as our winters are getting wetter.

It is proposed to gain access to the site via Tollgates, which leads off North Trade Road. The North Trade Road is home to Claverham Community College and over 1000 people of all ages, from birth to elderly, use the North Trade Road to get to the Claverham site 7 days a week. The site holds a nursery for children from birth to 4 years old. There is a Sports centre, for everyone in Battle to use. There is a Secondary School. The North Trade Road is an extremely busy road and cannot take any more traffic during rush hour, let alone at any other time of day. Tollgates itself has been the subject of concerns for people's safety in recent months. Let's not make those concerns a reality.

The site you are proposing to engulf with housing is part of the Battlefield for the most important Battle in UK history. The one that changed all our culture and led to our legal system. The system we still use today. I thought there were laws against building on Battlefield sites.

There is already a huge visitor centre at Battle Abbey for people to see the history we have in this town, but a lot of people also use the 1066 footpath to trace William's route from Pevensey. This footpath runs through Mansers Shaw, which is classed as an Ancient Woodland. Aside from the enjoyment walkers in the Shaw get, there are a lot of protected species in that woodland. Not only animals such as newts, foxes, and birds, but also many insects, fungi and plants, which are found in very few other places. This needs to be protected fiercely. Another housing estate very close to the woodland would damage it beyond any return. Also, although it is unclear where Harold actually fell, there is a chance he may have fallen on the very fields you are proposing to build on.

The housing market has slowed down radically over the last few years and houses are becoming harder to sell. The population of Britain has stalled and so the number of houses needed has also stalled. People are starting to realise the benefit of having 3 generations of a family together in the house and this is becoming more and more the norm. For this reason, 1- and 2-bedroom houses are not so much in demand. Extending smaller houses into bigger ones is becoming much more needed, but Rother, and the government keep rejecting these conversions and seem to still be using statistics from 10 years ago.

I really hope that Rother District Council, shows a modicum of sense and does not allow this proposal to take up any more time. Reject it as totally unsuitable, please.

Almonry site Battle BT7 - The access planned to this site for traffic to use Tollgates is just ridiculous - the junction at the top of the road at North Trade Road is totally blocked every afternoon at school time - traffic cannot get off the main road because parents are parking in Tollgates on the double yellow lines,verges and pavements - how Tollgates is now to support more houses being built - it is just a waiting game before a child from the school is killed or badly injured in Tollgates from cars parked at school time and people who live there trying to get past them - this is a very narrow road and was never built to carry so many cars - this site should not be accessed through TOLLGATES

I object to this development in an area of historic significance. Any building in this beautiful area will be detrimental to the wildlife.

I strongly object to the proposed allocation of sites BT1, BT8 and BT10. Hastings Road (A2100) already experiences severe congestion and regular tailbacks. Introducing around 250 additional dwellings, alongside the nearby Blackfriars junction, would intensify traffic conflict within a short distance and at the 30–40mph speed transition, creating unacceptable safety risks. In my view this fails the National Planning Policy Framework requirement that safe and suitable access must be achievable.

The proposal would also lead to the loss of over 11 hectares of Greenfield land within the High Weald National Landscape (AONB), contrary to national policy that gives such landscapes the highest level of protection and contrary to the aims of the Battle Neighbourhood Plan.

Battle’s infrastructure is already under pressure, with limited GP, dental and school capacity. For these reasons the allocation is unsound and should be removed from the Local Plan.

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

I am writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1, BT8 and BT10. 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.

At site BT8, the road cannot accommodate more traffic / users due to its narrow and predominantly single track layout. Turning out onto the already congested, fast, Hastings Road A2100 which is a 40mph stretch of road has a blind spot and is already dangerous without more vehicles using it.

There is a very limited bus service from BT8 which means that more vehicles will be forced to use the road which impacts the environment, causes more traffic congestion and makes the road even more dangerous.

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.
• BT1, BT8 and BT10 are sites of Historic Interest - The surrounding fields were once owned by the Montague Family and are surrounded by sites of significant historic interest / archeological sites regarding Battle Abbey and English Heritage.

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: Our local schools are already oversubscribed and overstretched. 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. As stated above, at site BT8, there is a lack of public transport which forces people to use their cars to attend the local schools which makes our roads more dangerous, congested and not environmentally friendly.

• 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 should like to make the following objections to the subject plan.

AONB

I am surprised that a development of this scale is under consideration given the siting in an AONB. Government guidance would appear to rule this out:
"Development proposals affecting AONBs

Only local authorities or the Secretary of State can give permission for development in, or affecting, an AONB. As a local authority, you must make sure that any proposals seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB, for example when:
• adding utility services, like gas pipes and telecommunications cables.
• creating public access as part of rights of way improvement.
You can consult Natural England where development might have a significant impact. Read guidance on how to review planning applications in a protected area before you make a planning decision.

You can use AONB management plans to help:
• shape local or neighbourhood plans
• make decisions on development proposals"
Area BT1 is also a haven for wildlife. My trail camera regularly records foxes in the area. They would be displaced by the proposed developments.

Several hundred houses will not "conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB".

A2100

The A2100/Hastings Road is already very busy. As a resident on Hastings Road I can wait 2-3 minutes for a gap in the traffic in the rush hour, and this is before the additional traffic generated by the Blackfriars Development. From what I observe, there are no changes to the T-Junction from the Hastings Road towards Blackfriars and this will inevitably lead to more congestion and the potential for accidents. This risk would be significantly increased by the development of 250 houses in BT1 (probably in the order of 400 cars) attempting to access Hastings Road via an adjacent T-Junction. Once the Blackfriars Development is complete, a full assessment of traffic flow is required before further housing development is considered.

Local Services

Developments of this scale, should they go ahead, will place an additional load on local services. Any developer must be required to incorporate adequate medical and educational facilities, as well as ensuring adequate water supplies (an essential requirement given the recent supply problems) and sewage facilities. For those wishing to use the train, Battle Station car park is normally full, and parking in Battle itself is very limited.

Archaeology

The BT sites are on the likely route taken by William the Conqueror immediately prior to the Battle of Hastings. Although not a Scheduled Site, a Watching Brief of any development would be sensible.

Blackfriars Development

The plan of the proposed developments does not show the Blackfriars Development and thus gives a false impression of local housing density.

The Character of Battle

Battle is a small, historic town. Central Government's arbitrary imposition of large housing developments takes no account of the character of the area, and already stretched local facilities, of which medical practices, transport links and local parking are significant. Battle will become enclosed by a growing ring of high-density housing which will destroy its character forever; our successors would be unlikely to forgive us.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I moved to Battle a few years ago in order to enjoy the green surroundings, and semi-rural atmosphere of the town. To think that Rother District Council is planning to erode the very nature of this area is unthinkable, and as outlined below, untenable. To invade the Greenfield sites in this AONB area in the way they plan, undermines all environmental issues around green space, and climate improvement, not to mention other infrastructure issues.

It will also detract from the value of the area to tourists, as in the summer the High Street in Battle is already very busy, and becomes congested.

I am therefore writing to formally submit my objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and adjacent sites. As a local resident of Battle, and living off one of the main roads into Battle, I can see that 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 roads into Battle

Hastings Road (A2100) is already at breaking point, and very often from the roundabout by Chequers Inn on Lower Lake. Traffic is very heavy already, morning and evening. How could it possibly 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, the new junction created with Starrs Mead would become hugely difficult. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) would be constantly blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). As drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span, accidents would be certain to occur, for frustrated travellers needing to get to schools, work, or trains.

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 - promises which are frequently over-ridden by planners.

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 such a vast increase in population. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management). Health: East Sussex currently faces a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices likewise report "increasing demand" and workforce challenges, making appointments difficult to secure.

Schools: The Council's own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools". This implies a reliance on "active travel". (See outlined problems in point 1.)

Precedent: This failure has been seen before. The Blackfriars development was approved, with promises of infrastructure. But these have been slow to materialise, or insufficient.The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments I have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because I 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. But 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 also likely to be watered down, should permission be granted.

Conclusion

Amidst an infrastructure crisis, this proposal plans to expand development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site. The plan is therefore unsound. It ignores statutory environmental duties, and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure, before progressing the plan further.

Yours faithfully,

Christine Gwyther-Scott

Policy BT7 – Land at Almonry Farm, Battle

I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of Land at Almonry Farm (Policy BT7) for residential development of approximately 80 dwellings.

In my view, this allocation fails the tests of soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is not justified, not effective, and is not consistent with national policy relating to protected landscapes, heritage assets, biodiversity and infrastructure.

1. 1. Impact on the High Weald National Landscape

The site lies wholly within the High Weald National Landscape. Under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Council has a statutory duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this nationally protected landscape.

The site comprises undeveloped greenfield land forming part of an intact historic field system defined by mature hedgerows and trees — characteristic features of the High Weald. The proposed suburban development at approximately 35 dwellings per hectare would introduce urban form into a sensitive rural landscape, resulting in permanent harm.

The allocation does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or overriding public interest sufficient to justify development within this protected landscape.

2. 2. Heritage Significance and Setting

The site lies in close proximity to nationally significant heritage assets, including:
• The Registered Battlefield (1066 Battle of Hastings)
• Battle Abbey Gatehouse Scheduled Monument
• Battle Conservation Area
• Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse

The land forms part of the historic agricultural setting associated with Battle Abbey and contributes to the wider battlefield landscape. Even where development does not directly affect designated assets, the NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of their setting.

There is also recognised archaeological potential in this area, with local historical evidence suggesting nearby Manser’s Shaw may correspond to the “Malfosse” episode of the 1066 battle. Allocation at this stage, prior to comprehensive archaeological assessment, is premature.
Development would suburbanise part of the Abbey’s wider landscape context and erode the rural character that contributes to the significance of these nationally important assets.

3. 3. Ancient Woodland and Biodiversity

Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat lie immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

While a 15-metre buffer is proposed, national guidance often recommends greater separation to prevent long-term degradation caused by light spill, recreational pressure, domestic pets and hydrological change.
The site supports wildlife including deer, bats and other protected species. The cumulative ecological impact of development in this sensitive location has not been adequately demonstrated at plan-making stage.

The allocation therefore risks conflict with national policy requiring protection of irreplaceable habitats and delivery of genuine biodiversity net gain.

4. 4. Surface Water and Flood Risk

The supporting text acknowledges that parts of the site are at risk of surface water flooding. Development of greenfield land increases hard surfacing and run-off, potentially exacerbating flood risk to neighbouring properties and downstream systems.
The Local Plan should not allocate sites where flood risk mitigation remains uncertain.

5. 5. Highway Safety and Infrastructure Capacity

Vehicular access is proposed via Tollgates, with impacts on North Trade Road and the A2100. The Plan itself acknowledges that further junction capacity assessments are required. Tollgates is also not fit for purpose with the addition of 80 new homes (and 160+ new cars) on the already tight, narrow and heavily congested road.

Given existing congestion and the proximity to Claverham Community College, there are legitimate concerns regarding pedestrian safety and traffic conflict. Allocation prior to confirmed modelling and mitigation measures renders the proposal unjustified and potentially ineffective.

In addition, Battle’s healthcare provision, school capacity and local services are already under pressure. The allocation does not secure clear, deliverable infrastructure improvements aligned with the scale of growth proposed.

6. 6. Cumulative and Precedent Effects

Almonry Farm currently contributes to the rural character of the southern edge of Battle. Allocation of this parcel risks incremental erosion of the wider landscape and may create pressure for further development across remaining farmland.
The cumulative impact of multiple allocations around Battle must be properly assessed to avoid gradual suburbanisation of a town of exceptional historic importance.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, Policy BT7 is not justified by robust evidence, fails to give appropriate weight to nationally protected landscape and heritage assets, and does not adequately address infrastructure and environmental constraints.

I respectfully request that Policy BT7 – Land at Almonry Farm – be removed from the next iteration of the Draft Local Plan.

Rejection Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to Planning Application/ Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042) and request that it be refused. The proposal fails to meet the requirements of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and does not demonstrate that the location can support additional housing without causing significant harm.

Traffic on Hastings Road is already operating at unsafe and over‑capacity levels, with no credible mitigation strategy provided. The development sits within an area of high landscape sensitivity, and the applicant has not supplied adequate evidence to show that biodiversity, drainage, and heritage assets can be protected. Local infrastructure—including healthcare, schools, and utilities—is already overstretched, and no binding commitments or deliverable plans have been offered to address this deficit.

Given these unresolved impacts, the application is unsound, unjustified, and contrary to adopted planning policy. I therefore request that permission be refused.
Yours sincerely
Mr and Mrs Bruce Burns.

Comments BT8 and GYP1 and GYP2.
Development on any of these sites will impact on neighbouring properties causing loss of privacy and over development of the area not in keeping with the rural countryside. These developments will increase existing traffic disturbance on an already dangerous and pothole ridden road. Construction disturbance will be inconvenient and noisy. Loss of land brings a likelihood for increased flooding in the area. Loose Farm Lane has a natural spring surfacing at the junction with Hastings Road, which is impacting on the road surface. Increased traffic will cause even more damage to the road compromising safety of drivers.

Hastings Road is an already built up area which can see major traffic disruptions. Adding houses on BT10 will increase this and make traffic and road safety even worse leading to street obstruction. Exiting Hastings Road from driveways can be difficult. Infrastructure in the area is already stretched, there aren’t enough schools, doctors surgeries. The wildlife at the back of the fields will be ruined. It is a habitat for numerous animals.

Battle is a historic rural town whose infrastructure is already under significant pressure. Local GP surgeries, schools, roads and essential services are struggling to accommodate the population increases resulting from recent developments. Further housing growth without significant infrastructure improvements risks placing unsustainable strain on services and negatively impacting existing residents.

The loss of greenfield land around Battle is also deeply concerning. These fields provide biodiversity habitats, natural drainage and help preserve the rural landscape and historic character that define the town.

Before sacrificing further countryside, priority should be given to redeveloping brownfield sites such as vacant industrial units, offices and other underused buildings.

Protecting Battle’s environment and ensuring infrastructure can support growth should remain central to any planning decision. Any approval should clearly demonstrate alignment with national and local planning policies on sustainable development, infrastructure capacity and protection of valued landscapes.

I am writing to object to the planning of residential building on site BT2. As a resident living near to the proposed site, the impact on wildlife will be huge. We see Buzzards, Woodpeckers and Tawny Owls in the woods within this proposed development. Furthermore the infrastructure in the area is insufficient for development and social housing will devalue our houses and community.

BT10 and others.

More development around Battle will only lead to more heavy congestion in the roads. The small High St already struggles with the amount of cars and lorries.

Unless the infrastructure is improved, and we have more school places, doctors, dentists, etc the town simply cannot cope.

BT10 will also lead to major deiays and congestion on the A2100/Hastings Rd.

I am also concerned about the local wildlife, and this particular site is used by local deer,

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

I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocations of the above sites. My property at 18 Hastings Road borders the proposed site BT1 and we are, therefore, very familiar with the land and the factors that will affect any development at this proposed allocation.

This is a large site at the rear of a ribbon development and is made up of a network of historic sloping fields and scattered woodland located on the southern side of Battle. It forms part of the countryside within the High Weald National Landscape and is an AONB. Its proximity to heritage assets including the Battle Conservation Area and Registered Battlefield, and a Listed Building are of considerable concern as are the historic field boundaries, ancient woodland and the risk of surface water flooding and compromise of an existing pond. This area provides a safe environment for a mix of wildlife some of which are protected; grass snakes, buzzards, bats and owls. The scale of the proposed development would be at odds with the existing, largely linear development pattern and would constitute a large encroachment into the countryside, harming the wildlife, landscape and character of Battle.

Access to the site would be via the Glengorse estate and a proposed new access onto the A2100 Hastings Road through land currently belonging to Marylands Boarding House. Despite the completion of the Bexhill/Hastings Link Road traffic volumes, speeds and congestion along with the consequential pollution levels remain of significant concern. Furthermore, the new access onto Hastings Road and its close proximity to a blind summit would be a significant hazard.

Land adjacent and to the North of this proposed allocation is referenced at BAT0021 of the HELAA 2026 and states:

‘The site comprises land within two adjoining residential gardens adjacent to the development boundary in the southern part of Battle. It was previously assessed through the SHLAA (2013) as being potentially suitable for residential development alongside adjoining land at Glengorse (part of which, site BAT0110, is now allocated for housing). Its availability was investigated through the Battle Neighbourhood Plan and the site was at that time found to be unavailable for development. There is no evidence that this situation has changed. Furthermore, the site is heavily treed in parts, including a significant tree belt between it and the adjoining allocated site, which would constrain any potential developable area. Together these factors mean the site is not suitable for further consideration.’

It remains true that this land is not available for development but this parcel of land is less heavily treed than the parcel of land identified in this proposal so one assumes the same rational should exist.

This proposed site is further from the Town’s amenities and given there are no cycle paths and public transport and footpaths are limited, more private vehicles would be used to access these amenities thereby adding to already unacceptable congestion and pollution. Furthermore, anyone wishing to walk to town would have to cross the busy highway as the footpath is to the North of Hastings Road. Some parts of the footpaths narrow to barely a meter with no simple remedy making it only suitable for single file usage and exceedingly dangerous for wheelchair users and parents escorting young children. This is compounded further by vehicles parking on the footpaths to try and avoid adding to the traffic congestion. There is no footpath on the South Side of Battle Hill and Hastings Road and all residents living along this part of road need to cross this very busy road to walk anywhere. Sadly, this has already resulted in fatalities. The addition of around 250 houses to the South of the A2100 would significantly increase the crossing risk.

Geological and Hydrogeological surveys on my land adjacent to the proposed site considered it to be representative of the Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation deposits indicated to underlie the site on the published geological map. This might explain why the HELAA states ‘The eastern part of the site is at risk of surface water
flooding which would constrain its development potential’ and the flooding risk across the whole site will be compounded by run off from impermeable surfaces like concrete and asphalt.

In conclusion, this proposed site expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The proposal of this allocation is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove this proposed allocation.

B10

According to a Flood Risk Assessment no building should be permitted on this area of land.

I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of sites BT1, BT8 and BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle) within the Draft Rother Local Plan (2025–2042).

As a resident of Battle, I have direct experience of existing traffic and environmental conditions. The proposed scale and location of development raises serious concerns regarding highway safety, landscape protection, flood risk and infrastructure capacity, and therefore conflicts with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the adopted Battle Neighbourhood Plan.

Highway Safety and Traffic Impact
Hastings Road (A2100) already experiences significant congestion, particularly during peak commuting periods. The addition of approximately 250 dwellings at BT1, alongside nearby development at Blackfriars, would generate substantial additional vehicle movements onto an already constrained section of road. The proposed access is located within close proximity to another major junction and within the transition between 30mph and 40mph speed limits. These factors create clear risks relating to queueing, junction interference, braking distances and turning movements. Under NPPF paragraph 115, development should only be prevented or refused where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or where safe and suitable access cannot be achieved. Based on current conditions, these requirements appear unlikely to be met.

Impact on the High Weald National Landscape
The site comprises over 11 hectares of greenfield land within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). NPPF paragraphs 189 and 190 state that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. The proposed density and scale of development would introduce a suburban form of development into a protected rural setting and conflicts with the Battle Neighbourhood Plan’s objectives to protect countryside character and prioritise previously developed land.

Flood Risk and Surface Water Management
Policy documentation acknowledges surface water flooding risk along the southern boundary of the site. Replacing permeable agricultural land with housing and associated hard surfaces risks increasing runoff and downstream flooding. NPPF paragraph 170 requires development to avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere and to incorporate effective drainage solutions. It is unclear how development at this scale could avoid exacerbating existing drainage pressures.

Infrastructure Capacity
Battle already faces significant pressure on local infrastructure, including GP services, NHS dentistry and school capacity. NPPF paragraphs 20 and 35 require Local Plans to ensure that infrastructure for health, education, transport and water management is planned and delivered alongside development. At present there is limited evidence that these services can accommodate the level of growth proposed.

Conclusion
In summary, the proposed allocations would place substantial pressure on an already constrained road network, harm a nationally protected landscape, increase flood risk and place additional strain on local infrastructure. For these reasons the proposal does not appear consistent with national policy or the objectives of the Battle Neighbourhood Plan. I therefore urge the Council to reconsider and remove these sites from the Local Plan.

BT1. Two major concerns regarding the Glengorse road itself due to the inevitable significant increase in the volume of traffic using it should the proposed development take place. Firstly, at its own T-junction several holes have appeared in the past and been repaired but they continue to appear and could possibly be sink holes. The road would need to be fully repaired and strengthened to take the increased strain. Secondly, with the current available car parking in Glengorse it is already impossible for two cars moving in opposite directions to pass each other - one has to wait for the other. Additonally in the mornings and mid-afternoon the stream of taxis taking students to the school on the Glengorse Estate leads to significant queues of traffic at the exit to the Hastings Road. A complete overhaul of how road traffic is managed is required otherwise chaos will permanently ensue.

Re: Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy BT1 & 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 BT10. 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.



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.

Re policy BT1 BT8 and BT10 Proposed 250 new homes

I am against the above as below

Will impact on our infrastructure it is already stretched
Traffic Chaos
Council would be ignoring Battle Neighbourhood Plan
Increase surface water
Plus despoil the local natural beauty of this area

Please we must try to keep some beauty that we can enjoy

Yours faithfully
Mrs Juliet Cooper

I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of Land at Almonry Farm (Policy BT7) for residential development of approximately 80 dwellings.

In my view, this allocation fails the tests of soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is not justified, not effective, and is not consistent with national policy relating to protected landscapes, heritage assets, biodiversity and infrastructure.

Impact on the High Weald National Landscape

The site lies wholly within the High Weald National Landscape. Under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Council has a statutory duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this nationally protected landscape. The site comprises undeveloped greenfield land forming part of an intact historic field system defined by mature hedgerows and trees — characteristic features of the High Weald. The proposed suburban development at approximately 35 dwellings per hectare would introduce urban form into a sensitive rural landscape, resulting in permanent harm. The allocation does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or overriding public interest sufficient to justify development within this protected landscape.

Heritage Significance and Setting

The site lies in close proximity to nationally significant heritage assets, including:

• The Registered Battlefield (1066 Battle of Hastings)
• Battle Abbey Gatehouse Scheduled Monument
• Battle Conservation Area
• Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse

The land forms part of the historic agricultural setting associated with Battle Abbey and contributes to the wider battlefield landscape. Even where development does not directly affect designated assets, the NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of their setting.

There is also recognised archaeological potential in this area, with local historical evidence suggesting nearby Manser’s Shaw may correspond to the “Malfosse” episode of the 1066 battle. Allocation at this stage, prior to comprehensive archaeological assessment, is premature.

Development would suburbanise part of the Abbey’s wider landscape context and erode the rural character that contributes to the significance of these nationally important assets.

Ancient Woodland and Biodiversity

Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat lie immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. While a 15-metre buffer is proposed, national guidance often recommends greater separation to prevent long-term degradation caused by light spill, recreational pressure, domestic pets and hydrological change. The site supports wildlife including deer, bats and other protected species. The cumulative ecological impact of development in this sensitive location has not been adequately demonstrated at plan-making stage. The allocation therefore risks conflict with national policy requiring protection of irreplaceable habitats and delivery of genuine biodiversity net gain.

Surface Water and Flood Risk

The supporting text acknowledges that parts of the site are at risk of surface water flooding. Development of greenfield land increases hard surfacing and run-off, potentially exacerbating flood risk to neighbouring properties and downstream systems. The Local Plan should not allocate sites where flood risk mitigation remains uncertain.

Highway Safety and Infrastructure Capacity
Vehicular access is proposed via Tollgates, with impacts on North Trade Road and the A2100. The Plan itself acknowledges that further junction capacity assessments are required. Given existing congestion and the proximity to Claverham Community College, there are legitimate concerns regarding pedestrian safety and traffic conflict. Allocation prior to confirmed modelling and mitigation measures renders the proposal unjustified and potentially ineffective.

Since moving to North Trade Road around two years ago, we have been struck by the huge congestion on the road (and Battle high street), particularly around school drop off/ pick up times, and the additional traffic which would be introduced by the proposed new dwellings will only exacerbate the existing safety and pollution issues, making the area generally very unpleasant for residents and spoiling Battle's natural position as a market town through overdevelopment. The proposed one-way access via Tollgates is insufficient to support the amount of additional traffic which would be generated and undoubtedly negatively affect the value of properties for residents in this area.
In addition, Battle’s healthcare provision, school capacity and local services are already under pressure. The allocation does not secure clear, deliverable infrastructure improvements aligned with the scale of growth proposed.

Cumulative and Precedent Effects

Almonry Farm currently contributes to the rural character of the southern edge of Battle. Allocation of this parcel risks incremental erosion of the wider landscape and may create pressure for further development across remaining farmland.

The cumulative impact of multiple allocations around Battle must be properly assessed to avoid gradual suburbanisation of a town of exceptional historic importance.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, Policy BT7 is not justified by robust evidence, fails to give appropriate weight to nationally protected landscape and heritage assets, and does not adequately address infrastructure and environmental constraints.

I respectfully request that Policy BT7 – Land at Almonry Farm – be removed from the next iteration of the Draft Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,

As a resident of Battle, I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed plans to build over 250 new homes as described in the Proposed Allocation Policy BT1, BT8, BT10 on Hastings Road at Battle.
As the Council is aware, there already is a large ongoing housing development on the Blackfriars site in the town with the Tapestry New Homes project which, when complete, will exert considerable strain on the infrastructure of Battle, with increased pressure on schools, doctors/ dentists, and presumably a further increase in traffic congestion on the Hastings Road.
Adding another major housing project to the area would simply exacerbate these problems even further, and together with the environmental destruction that would result and its impact on the High Weald National Landscape, I object in the strongest term to these proposals, and am enclosing a copy of the example objection letter with this document.

I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of Land at Almonry Farm (Policy BT7) for residential development of approximately 80 dwellings. In my view, this allocation fails the tests of soundness set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It is not justified, not effective, and is not consistent with national policy relating to protected landscapes, heritage assets, biodiversity and infrastructure. 1. Impact on the High Weald National Landscape The site lies wholly within the High Weald National Landscape. Under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Council has a statutory duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this nationally protected landscape. The site comprises undeveloped greenfield land forming part of an intact historic field system defined by mature hedgerows and trees — characteristic features of the High Weald. The proposed suburban development at approximately 35 dwellings per hectare would introduce urban form into a sensitive rural landscape, resulting in permanent harm. The allocation does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or overriding public interest sufficient to justify development within this protected landscape. 2. Heritage Significance and Setting The site lies in close proximity to nationally significant heritage assets, including: • The Registered Battlefield (1066 Battle of Hastings) • Battle Abbey Gatehouse Scheduled Monument • Battle Conservation Area • Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse The land forms part of the historic agricultural setting associated with Battle Abbey and contributes to the wider battlefield landscape. Even where development does not directly affect designated assets, the NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of their setting. There is also recognised archaeological potential in this area, with local historical evidence suggesting nearby Manser’s Shaw may correspond to the “Malfosse” episode of the 1066 battle. Allocation at this stage, prior to comprehensive archaeological assessment, is premature. Development would suburbanise part of the Abbey’s wider landscape context and erode the rural character that contributes to the significance of these nationally important assets. 3. Ancient Woodland and Biodiversity Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat lie immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. While a 15-metre buffer is proposed, national guidance often recommends greater separation to prevent long-term degradation caused by light spill, recreational pressure, domestic pets and hydrological change. The site supports wildlife including deer, bats and other protected species. The cumulative ecological impact of development in this sensitive location has not been adequately demonstrated at plan-making stage. The allocation therefore risks conflict with national policy requiring protection of irreplaceable habitats and delivery of genuine biodiversity net gain. 4. Surface Water and Flood Risk The supporting text acknowledges that parts of the site

are at risk of surface water f looding. Development of greenfield land increases hard surfacing and run-off, potentially exacerbating flood risk to neighbouring properties and downstream systems. The Local Plan should not allocate sites where flood risk mitigation remains uncertain. 5. Highway Safety and Infrastructure Capacity Vehicular access is proposed via Tollgates, with impacts on North Trade Road and the A2100. The Plan itself acknowledges that further junction capacity assessments are required. Given existing congestion and the proximity to Claverham Community College, there are legitimate concerns regarding pedestrian safety and traffic conflict. Allocation prior to confirmed modelling and mitigation measures renders the proposal unjustified and potentially ineffective. In addition, Battle’s healthcare provision, school capacity and local services are already under pressure. The allocation does not secure clear, deliverable infrastructure improvements aligned with the scale of growth proposed. 6. Cumulative and Precedent Effects Almonry Farm currently contributes to the rural character of the southern edge of Battle. Allocation of this parcel risks incremental erosion of the wider landscape and may create pressure for further development across remaining farmland. The cumulative impact of multiple allocations around Battle must be properly assessed to avoid gradual suburbanisation of a town of exceptional historic importance. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, Policy BT7 is not justified by robust evidence, fails to give appropriate weight to nationally protected landscape and heritage assets, and does not adequately address infrastructure and environmental constraints. I respectfully request that Policy BT7 – Land at Almonry Farm – be removed from the next iteration of the Draft local plan.

Currently, the schools are oversubscribed and the 2 doctors surgeries cannot cope. Battle High Street is constantly congested and there are often no spaces in the car park at weekends. Flooding is becoming worse. The massively negative impact caused by the white elephant that is Blackfriars has been beyond acceptable. Public transport is very limited and there is very little local employment. The detriment to the community is huge and the ridiculous expansion is ruining the incredibly special community that is Battle. We are a small town with an infrastructure already to breaking point. The crime rate is low and it is currently safe to walk to and from the town. It is also an AONB. The only winners will be Coopers, the developers and those selling land and houses to facilitate the expansion.

Areas BT1 and BT9 are very large developments that are supposed to take place on green spaces providing important benefits to the nearby residents. In particular, the green fields of BT9 ensure that the Coronation Gardens neighbourhood has at least one view over green land, the other sides being occupied by a major road and the railway. The open green space is important to keep wildlife, domestic animals, and people cooler in the summer months. These developments should not be permitted to continue. If they are, they should at least be scaled back significantly to leave significant green space on the side of existing neighbourhoods.
Additionally, traffic from BT9 should not be allowed to rely on existing roads in the nearby neighbourhood of Coronation Gardens, which is already overwhelmed with cars.

To Whom it may concern,
I object to plans for more extensive building in Battle. The Blackfriars Development has and continues to be a fiasco. We were advised at the meeting last Thursday in the Town that if land is not fit for purpose ie no suitable for building you as a Council would not continue. This is NOT the case with Blackfriars you were advised that this plot was not fit for the purpose of house building every house has need piled at extreme cost! So in addition there fire you will build regardless of what might happen . The infrastructure around the Town does not meet the needs of the number of dwellings that we have now. New school needed, schools have said can’t take anymore. The Doctors surgery’s one looking for new premises have said can’t take anymore as have the dentists. The police in the past have said this would be ill advised it would be good to see as many pice in the town traffic wardens! You aim to use part of Market Square to build this resulting in less parking and yet you say you want to encourage people to shop/ visit the Town not everyone is mobile and parking is extremely expensive. Whilst you are planning this might add we need a decent Supermarket! You’ve taken a pump away sent to Hastings more houses and further fir a pump to travel if one out. The infrastructure is lacking already. We need houses but have to be mindful where there go we need green space for the Community to enjoy. Frankly the overdeveloped Blackfriars is hideous all in top of each other orange boxes that are not giving what was promised! So the same will happen again broken promises ugly expensive development of which the Town can’t support. Whilst I realise we have adapt to modern living ie what builds look like they need to be more attractive and sociable not ugly boxes overlooking each other. Shocking management on this infrastructure in before more housing we will never get to see a medic or children going to local school! Please stop building on unsuitable land which no one can afford think what is affordable and some much needed social housing.I strongly object to these proposals!

The traffic is very bad in Battle. How will this be addressed. And the town has alot of important architecture and grade 2 listed buildings these areas should be protected for many reasons from tourism opportunities to our national heritage.
And how will ancient woodland and other wildlife be protected, since such areas are rare and important for human health and happiness, as well as with the pollution levels in the town.

Alot of the town is already built up, building more houses will put much more strain on existing services and traffic as previously mentioned would become an issue, but not only for Battle but potentially the surrounding area, since important roads such as the North trade road pass through it.