I object to: Bt1, bt2, bt3, bt4, bt6, bt7, bt8, bt9, bt10, bt11.

This will absolutely decimate the area, the green spaces and wildlife. It will be catastrophic to the environment. We already have insufficient water. The road system cannot cope, the traffic is already terrible and there are potholes everywhere which you cannot fix. We are unable to get doctors appointments. Bt5 is on existing working space and is the only logical suggestion I see.

I object the planning for BT7. My reasons are the following:
The entrance and exit out of Tollgates is already extremely busy, especially at school drop off and pick up times, sometimes having to wait quite a long time to get in and out of the road I live in. The planning will only increase the traffic here.
Many residents and students use the footpath which goes from near Claverham to Mansers Shaw. North Trade Road is jam packed with students twice a day and when I walk to work at the same time, it is extremely difficult to walk into hundreds of oncoming kids. This will only increase the footfall on North Trade Road.
There is also something special about walking to and from town along the footpath rather than the main road. Walking through nature is good for your mental health and your physiology.

I have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed development of land at Almory Farm (BT7). My main concerns are:
1). Vehicular access seems to be via Tollgates. Tollgates is already at capacity following the building of the additional homes in 2021, and has always been a high-traffic area due to its proximity to Claverham Community College. The access onto North Trade Road will also be an issue, as the road cannot already support the high volume of traffic currently using it. The proposed entrance to the development, will meet Tollgates is also near the corner into Field Way. The road is narrow with many vehicles often parked along the whole stretch of road. It is already not uncommon for traffic coming in one direction to have to reverse back for some distance as the road is not wide enough when there are vehicles parked .

I have lived locally for many years and the land referred to is an important part of Battle and the world known Battle Abbey area. It’s somewhere we used to play as kids and it’s somewhere we used to help with the harvest. It’s green land, used by animals all year. The children use it as a safer walk to school rather than the busy north trade road and it’s used every day by lots of people enjoying the peace and calm whilst walking their dogs. There is nothing nicer than having a place to go away from the busyness of life. More houses in Battle will affect everything, the traffic on NTR is already busy, the parents struggle to get their kids into the local schools and the doctors are not able to keep up with the numbers of patients. It’s not practical or wanted by many.

In relation to BT1 to BT11 I object for the following reasons:
- Battle cannot cope with its existing population - not enough school spaces, doctors or dentists, the roads are poorly maintained and in a bad condition. the high street is often blocked because of high volume of traffic and to many large lorries, Emergency vehicles struggle to get through. The A2100 is often shut or restricted access because of land slides. Road weight restrictions are not enforced. The A2100 and Marley Lane are often shut because of the level crossing and the A21 is often shut because of accidents.
- Battle is already struggling and there are existing ongoing large developments that are not even finished yet and the impact of these need to be measured on Battle infrastructure before any new plans can be considered.
= Battle is of Historic significance and receives many tourists in the spring/summer months which already impact the roads badly.
- The birth rate is falling dramatically so not as many houses will be needed going forward.
- Battle has much wildlife which is being pushed out by all this development.
- Battle is an area of outstanding natural beauty and should be protected.
- Battle has good farmland which will be decimated by this plan.
- The new road is not working much of the traffic coming over the Ridge does not drop down to the roundabouts to the A21 but just goes through Battle, Especially the large lorries.
- BT1 there is already much congestion on Hastings Road especially at school drop off time and the road will not be able to accommodate approx 500 more cars especially with the turning for the Blackfrias development so close.Also this will make it even harder to cross the road.
- BT4 The main road that this land will join is not suitable for more traffic. Often there are a number of cars parked and only 1 car can pass at a time. This is a beautiful field that is home to a lot of wildlife. The grassed area to the side of the road is used by many dog walkers. This will result in more traffic at the junction of Mount Street and the High Street and the junction cannot cope now.
-BT5 this will involve much traffic exiting onto Marley Lane on a very dangerous bend with low visibility. Also this are is inhabited by much wildlife. Marley Lane is often blocked and cannot cope with further traffic. Marley Lane also has many horse riders travelling on it, lorry weight restrictions and a level crossing and a bus route. Also much flooding in this area.
- BT7 - This land is beautiful and is the home to much wildlife. North Trade Road cannot cope with the existing traffic let alone more. The road is heavily congested especially during rush hour. The area often floods.
-BT9 - This development will again come out onto Marley Lane and the objections given on BT5 also apply here.
-BT11 - This appears to remove the car park which is used heavily especially during the week. The car park in Mount Street is not sufficient on its own. Further, more at school drop off and pick up time this area is jam packed.

This is a historical town in the english coutry side. Picturesque views that would be gone forever. Traffic is already getting worse as it is. It would really increase if the proposed site entrance in tollgates were to go ahead. The schools and surgeries are already over crowded and this proposal would only make things worse. The comunity is already crowded and this would only.make things worse. The land in question is part of nationally.protected countryside. Building on this would mean it is gone forever.

I object to the building on Manser's Shaw (area BT7), as it is an area of natural beauty, enjoyed by many in the local area, and I feel there are better places on which to develop new dwellings.

BT1 is unsupportable. The volume and density of housing is far too high and will completely change the character of Battle. The increased volume of traffic will be very unsafe for both drivers and pedestrians: Hastings Road is extremely busy now and this will make it considerably worse. The level of pollution will inevitably be much higher and have a considerable environmental impact on the residents of Battle.
This is a greenfield site and this new development will have great impact on wildlife with consequent habitat loss. There will an increased flooding risk, drainage will be impacted and it will have an effect on the water table.
Battle is a small town and does not have the infrasture to support a further housing development of this size.

12/03/26
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation and potential development
of Site BT1 – Land south of Hastings Road, Battle, on the grounds of flood risk
and other key planning concerns.
Flood Risk Evidence from the Council
The Sustainability Appraisal supporting the emerging Local Plan (Rother District
Council, Interim SA Report, January 2026) explicitly assessed Site BT1 under the
flood risk objective (SA5). The appraisal reports the following scoring for the site:
• SA5a – Flood risk to people and property: 0 (Neutral)
• SA5b – Impact of development on flood risk elsewhere: –– (Significant
Negative)
• SA5c – Opportunities to reduce flood risk: + (Minor Positive)
The significant negative (––) under SA5b demonstrates that development of this
site is likely to increase flood risk elsewhere, by reducing natural drainage
capacity, displacing floodwater, and increasing surface water runoff. The site
currently functions as part of the natural floodplain south of Hastings Road, which
plays a critical role in managing water flows and protecting existing homes and
infrastructure.
National planning guidance requires that development should avoid increasing
flood risk elsewhere, and where evidence suggests that impacts are significant, the
precautionary principle should apply. The Council’s own assessment confirms
that Site BT1 fails this test. Allocating or developing this land would therefore be
inconsistent with both local and national flood-risk policy.
Additional Planning Concerns
1. Loss of Green Infrastructure and Landscape Character
Site BT1 contributes to the rural setting and visual character of southern
Battle. Development would erode open countryside, reducing green corridors
and harming the local landscape, which is valued by residents and recognised
in local planning guidance.
2. Cumulative Impact on Flood Risk and Drainage
Beyond the site itself, cumulative development in Battle and surrounding
floodplain areas would amplify flood risk to existing homes, businesses, and
transport routes. Relying on mitigation measures such as SuDS alone may be
insufficient.
3. Conflict with the Council’s Own Evidence Base
Allocating Site BT1 would directly contradict the Sustainability Appraisal’s own
assessment, which explicitly identifies significant negative flood risk impacts
Conclusion
The evidence clearly indicates that Site BT1 is unsuitable for development.
The Council’s own assessment identifies significant negative impacts on flood
risk elsewhere, which is a strong statutory and planning consideration.
Combined with concerns over landscape, highway safety, infrastructure
capacity, and cumulative flood impacts, the site fails multiple key planning
tests.
I therefore strongly urge Rother District Council to remove Site BT1 from the
proposed allocations.

Re: Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy BT1, 8 &10 (land south of Hastings Road
Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)
19/02/2026
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.
Yours faithfully

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation and potential development
of Site BT1 – Land south of Hastings Road, Battle, on the grounds of flood risk
and other key planning concerns.
Flood Risk Evidence from the Council
The Sustainability Appraisal supporting the emerging Local Plan (Rother District
Council, Interim SA Report, January 2026) explicitly assessed Site BT1 under the
flood risk objective (SA5). The appraisal reports the following scoring for the site:
• SA5a – Flood risk to people and property: 0 (Neutral)
• SA5b – Impact of development on flood risk elsewhere: –– (Significant
Negative)
• SA5c – Opportunities to reduce flood risk: + (Minor Positive)
The significant negative (––) under SA5b demonstrates that development of this
site is likely to increase flood risk elsewhere, by reducing natural drainage
capacity, displacing floodwater, and increasing surface water runoff. The site
currently functions as part of the natural floodplain south of Hastings Road, which
plays a critical role in managing water flows and protecting existing homes and
infrastructure.
National planning guidance requires that development should avoid increasing
flood risk elsewhere, and where evidence suggests that impacts are significant, the
precautionary principle should apply. The Council’s own assessment confirms
that Site BT1 fails this test. Allocating or developing this land would therefore be
inconsistent with both local and national flood-risk policy.
Additional Planning Concerns
1. Loss of Green Infrastructure and Landscape Character
Site BT1 contributes to the rural setting and visual character of southern
Battle. Development would erode open countryside, reducing green corridors
and harming the local landscape, which is valued by residents and recognised
in local planning guidance.
2. Cumulative Impact on Flood Risk and Drainage
Beyond the site itself, cumulative development in Battle and surrounding
floodplain areas would amplify flood risk to existing homes, businesses, and
transport routes. Relying on mitigation measures such as SuDS alone may be
insufficient.
3. Conflict with the Council’s Own Evidence Base
Allocating Site BT1 would directly contradict the Sustainability Appraisal’s own
assessment, which explicitly identifies significant negative flood risk impacts
Conclusion
The evidence clearly indicates that Site BT1 is unsuitable for development.
The Council’s own assessment identifies significant negative impacts on flood
risk elsewhere, which is a strong statutory and planning consideration.
Combined with concerns over landscape, highway safety, infrastructure
capacity, and cumulative flood impacts, the site fails multiple key planning
tests.
I therefore strongly urge Rother District Council to remove Site BT1 from the
proposed allocations

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

I understand the need for new housing and it’s benefits for the economy.

However, I grew up locally and I am continually horrified at the amount of development of greenfield sites in Rother. This has happened in my lifetime and is depressing - bad for local people’s mental health.

What’s more, the housing has been built with minimal consideration of infrastructure or quality design and workmanship. This is integral to the process and it is not acceptable to propose such sites as BT7 without the support of the wider infrastructure in the draft plan. The bankrupt Croydon Council can manage a holistic proposal so Rother should be able to.

I have worked on proposals in sensitive locations in london and have been told by their local councils that the sites were not appropriate for development due to urban sprawl, densification, loss of open space, loss of green space, loss of biodiversity etc. and that was in and around london! This is biodiverse pure open countryside and should truly remain so.

I have kept the standard letter copied in below as I agree with the points.

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.

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.

I object to site BT7. It is a large site forming part of the High Weald National Landscape. It is a greenfield site with important links to the town's history. Such a large development would have a wholly negative impact on the area's biodiversity. There are no exceptional circumstances or an overriding public interest to justify development within this protected landscape, home to ancient woodland and protected species. Battle has already supported three large developments off North Trade Road, plus the large devlopment at Lilybank and the ongoing development at Blackfriars - all built without a commensurate uplift in community infrastructure. Another large development without consideration for the size and character of the incumbent town and the services that will be under increasing pressure to support it is not justified.
I urge you to remove this site from the local plan and help to preserve Battle's character, history and ecology.

Loss of ancient hedgerows, wildlife habitats, veteran trees and beautiful landscape, less access to enjoying nature when walking which affects mental health.
Increased traffic, so more wear and tear on roads.
Increased population of the town with not enough infrastructure to support.
Increased urbanism effecting the heritage and historical nature of the town - danger of urban sprawl.
Decimation of farmland.
Destroying another area of natural beauty.
We moved to Battle to be more rural and live in a quieter environment, this is being ruined and decimated. This could devalue our homes.

I object to: Bt1, bt2, bt3, bt4, bt6, bt7, bt8, bt9, bt10, bt11.

This will absolutely decimate the area, the green spaces and wildlife. It will be catastrophic to the environment. We already have insufficient water. The road system cannot cope, the traffic is already terrible and there are potholes everywhere which you cannot fix. We are unable to get doctors appointments. Bt5 is on existing working space and is the only logical suggestion I see.

I would like to object to the proposed allocation of Land at Breadsell (BT2) for housing as part of the RDC Local Plan.

The proposed site raises several serious concerns.
First, the potential impact on Marline Valley Woods SSSI remains unresolved. The council’s own information confirms that eco-hydrological monitoring is still needed to understand the effects of development. Allocating the site before this work is completed seems misguided and not supported by sufficient evidence.

The site is also within the Strategic Gap between Battle, Crowhurst and Hastings, which exists to prevent settlements merging and to protect the countryside between them. Building housing here would weaken that separation.
The policy depends on a larger development happening in Hastings Borough, which is located in an ancient woodland with even more viability concerns. As that land is outside Rother District Council’s control, there is no guarantee the wider scheme will happen, which raises serious concerns about whether the site is even deliverable. he site is not well related to the existing settlement of Battle. Your own supporting text suggests that development would effectively form an extension of Hastings rather than Battle, which questions whether this is an appropriate location for housing within Rother’s Local Plan.

The land is open countryside on higher ground next to the High Weald National Landscape. Development would likely harm the rural character of the area and the landscape setting. Access is from the A2100, which has limited pedestrian & no cycling infrastructure and high traffic speeds, making it an unsustainable location likely to increase car use.

The woodland and hedgerow habitats around Breadsell and the nearby Marline Valley Woods SSSI are known to support protected species including hazel dormice, bats, and some protected species. Development here will fragment or destroy important habitat and wildlife corridors, and there is no evidence provided that these species could be safeguarded.

For all these reasons listed above, I strongly object to this site's proposal and I do not consider this site suitable for allocation.

BT7 - this area backs onto woodland and is home to many different types of wildlife. It is my local woodland and is the closest field for people to see lambs this time of year. It is a beautiful sight and a lovely walk. It would be a disgrace to build on it. We do not need more housing. Make use of what we already have. This has been proven by other local councils, selling excess new builds to county councils such as Crawley and bringing some disrespectful people to our beautiful area. We must cherish our historical town and stop building in our countryside.

It will ruin the biodiversity of the area and spoil the views and access.

Re: Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042) - Regulation 18 Consultation
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. 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:
o The Registered Battlefield (1066 Battle of Hastings)
o Battle Abbey Gatehouse Scheduled Monument
o Battle Conservation Area
o Grade I 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 crowd 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 caster 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 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. 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 corrosion 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.

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.

I wish to object to building of houses or any development on the greenfield site Land at Almonry Farm BT7

I am horrified that you would allow any further land in Battle to be lost to more building. I point out that the fields of much of Battle is ancient land, so much so that the entire world knows about 1066! . It is abhorrent to take and ruin any more land in Battle.

There is much development taking place atm, Off The Spinney/ Battle Hill,North Trade Rd / Conquerors Gate, behind the railway station meeting Marley Lane, on and on and on! You have only recently finished London rd Lilybank houses, the care home and road of more houses next to it- Nightingale Place. I am certain there will be many more. A small towns infrastructure can only take so much and Battle is passed its limit.

The roads cannot cope with the amount of traffic on them. The high street is a very dangerous one with huge lorries driving along it. There is always a build up and queues can stretch throughout Battle some days. The condition of the roads is absolutely terrible and my personal vehicles have suffered greatly - two lots of broken suspension and numerous tyres. I do not travel at speed and crawl through the pot holes but have still had to spend thousands on my car up to date.

The doctors surgery has the huge burden of all these extra people and that has increased massively over the past few years. Imagine just the care home alone has stretched their capability and things are pushed to the limit. The small schools are not equipped/ large enough to take on even more children. I could write many more reasons why this terrible idea is so detrimental to our small town. The ancient land must be left alone.

My family and many other local residents are distraught that the council would even consider any more development!

BT11 - Site includes leasehold properties, and some immediately adjacent, granted for 125 years from 1989 - existing access and allocated parking thereby included to parts of identified site.
BT11 Plan - Southern boundary indicated is to public highway (Abbey Way) with no public footpath or hedgerow and trees (Policy text v. and ix. refer - these are an error).
BT11 - Supporting text - Comment 1 - Existing car and coach parking area essential for commercial and tourist trade to town. Any reduction will have adverse effect on local commerce. Also parking is used as put-down/pick-up area for infants attending adjacent school. Comment 2 - Adjacent cul-de-sac Woodhams Close is not adopted highway so vehicular and pedestrian access should not be promoted as a given.

North trade Road, and the entrance to Tollgates is congested enough already, due to Claverham school and is a nightmare during drop off and pick up times for school students. The extra housing will cause absolute chaos. Are there to be extra schools, dentists and doctors surgeries to cope with all the extra housing? Probably not!

I object about plans for BT2. In total this will be for 500 homes.
Loosing ancient woodlands and open space. I'm concerned about the sewarage overload for the area, recently the pumping station at Delaware Drive, St leonards failed, which resulted in tankers having to take it away.
The road at Telham always floods in heavy rain.
I note that there is no plans for a school or GP services which are already overstretched and unable to cope. I haven't had a face to face doctors appointment for 5 years now and this causes me great concern.
Public transport is poor to this area and at most times a bus service is every 2 hours.
This is only part of the local plan as the remaining 700 houses will be in the St Leonards plan so this is not giving the full picture and it is unstable for the area

I object to all of the greenfield sites proposed as there are plenty of brownfield sites including at Battle Railway Station and St Johns Cross and absolutely no need to be focusing on greenfield just because it's the most profitable for the developers. We should be focusing purely on brownfield to preserve the harmony and heritage of Battle.

BT1, BT8, BT9; BT10 are all greenfield sites which are rich wildlife habitats. The number of proposed new dwellings would overwhelm the existing heavy traffic along the Hastings road and through Battle high street. There are already 3 schools in Battle and congestion is a daily occurrence. The proposed entrance to BT1 is less than 200 metres away from the entrance to the new ‘Tapestry’ development. There is no footpath linking Glengorse with the Tesco Express and now residents have to contend with crossing the A2100 on Battle Hill with no pedestrian crossing. A crossing and footpath for both sides of the road would need to be installed. Glengorse estate is protected and now hosts a school for students with specific Emotional and Behavioural needs. To have high density housing on the boundary would be detrimental for the students. The excessive numbers of dwellings would be detrimental to Battles AONB.

The Draft Local Plan’s approach to development in Battle appears flawed in both its site selection and housing mix. The plan identifies numerous greenfield sites for development, yet fails to properly consider more sustainable brownfield opportunities within the town.
Importantly, the council’s own evidence acknowledges that the district requires a greater supply of smaller homes suitable for older residents wishing to downsize and for first-time buyers entering the housing market. However, the type of development likely to result from large greenfield allocations is predominantly 4/5 bedroom market housing, which does not meet these identified needs.
Large luxury homes on greenfield sites do little to address affordability or provide appropriate accommodation for seniors and younger residents. In contrast, smaller brownfield sites within the town, particularly those close to public transport such as the railway station, would be far more suitable for the development of compact, accessible homes and apartments.

BT1 - Land south of Hastings Road, Battle OBJECT
A very large development contributing to an urban environment rather than the rural aspect of Battle.
The Battle Neighbourhood Plan included a total of 15 dwellings on this site, which have not been developed yet.
Egress from this large site onto the A2100 will be compromised when the final Blackfriars Road onto the A2100 is made. Increased traffic congestion will create high pollution levels that are likely to affect residents and drivers when queueing to get into Battle. The access into and out of the two sites either side of Glengorse will be difficult for both existing and future residents.
With increased population to the south/east of the town, and schools being at the centre and north/west of the town, there is more need than ever to complete the shared-use walking and cycling route as detailed in the Battle LCWIP section of the 2018 East Sussex Cycling and Walking Strategy. The proposed route is a part of the 2021 Battle Neighbourhood Plan.
As for the two areas which make up BT1, they must have a pedestrian link between them.

BT2 - Land at Breadsell, Battle OBJECT
The A2100 at this point, due to its uncluttered edges (fields and hedges to the south, attractive sandstone wall and trees to the north) and distant views to the coast, clearly separates Battle from Hastings, and should remain a strategic gap. If considered for development, good screening using a variety of native trees should be planted between the site and the A2100. A lower housing density, adjusted in size and shape to maintain the existing development boundaries would also better match the low density to the north and west.

BT3 - Beech Farm, Battle SUPPORT
Whilst Council has no objection in principle, with increasing amounts of employment on the whole of the Beech Farm site, consideration should be given to how people might arrive at the site sustainably, as to with journeys which cross the site from Netherfield Road to North Trade Road. There are public footpaths in the area, however they cater for the casual rambler rather than the commuter. Making the southern access road a permissive path would open up sustainable travel options for more people.

BT4 – Caldbec House. SUPPORT
No objection, the Battle Neighbourhood Plan allocated 5 dwellings for this site, 3 have been developed to date.

BT5 – Rutherford Business Park. SUPPORT
No objection

BT6- North of Sunnyrise OBJECT
This site was previously assessed under the Battle Neighbourhood Plan and was excluded due to the access being in dispute.

BT7 –Almonry Farm OBJECT
This site was assessed within the Battle Neighbourhood Plan and was dismissed as unsuitable. The parameters remain unchanged. The land is unsuitable from an access point of view and has historical limitations as it is close to the battlefield. There is also Ancient Woodland requiring protection.
This site should be used as leverage to push forward the “Battle Schools Greenway” cycling and walking route, as detailed in the Battle LCWIP section of the 2018 East Sussex Cycling and Walking Strategy. The proposed route is a part of the 2021 Battle Neighbourhood Plan. The original Battle LCWIP plans could be utilised by creating a new “crossroads” point on Almonry Farm track where it bridges Asten Fields with Hampden Close, or an alternative route made by upgrading the footpath running adjacent to the north edge of the proposed site.
The Asten Field estate suffers from having more vehicles than there are parking spaces, meaning that residents often park cars on grass areas, across dropped kerbs, and sometimes ON the access path into Battle Health Pathway. Development at BT7 would be a good time to provide a little more parking space which residents of Asten Fields could use, preferably with a few public EV charge points as most houses at Asten Fields are not immediately adjacent to parking spaces (so home charging is difficult, a major barrier to EV adoption).

BT8 –Land at Loose Farm SUPPORT
From the proposal it is unclear where the new access onto the A2100 would be situated as at that point the road is on a bend. Subject to this being confirmed as a safe access there is no objection.

BT9 – Land east of Coronation Gardens OBJECT
As this is in the only permitted Green Gap within Battle, this should be retained with no further development .
Should the site be considered, pedestrian access (or even shared-use access, as the site is adjacent to a bridleway) at the western edge of the site should be incorporated to connect with the wider footpath network and to Coronation Gardens with its recreation facilities and shop.
For sustainable travel into town and to the railway station, a footway should be constructed along Marley Lane, to join this site with the existing footway near Coronation Gardens vehicle entry point.
The speed limit should be reduced to 30mph or lower, as it is currently 60mph.

BT10 - Land adjoining Little Brans, Battle OBJECT
Council considers this to be overdevelopment in an historic fieldscape. There appear to be two access roads, isolating a property between the two, which is unacceptable. Constraints include designated Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat.
To be considered a “sustainable site” (as per the existing description), speed limits on the A2100 should be lowered for safer cycling into Battle. Alternatively, consider upgrading footways to become shared-use paths between “Bannatyne’s roundabout” and Battle Town. A preferable option would be to create a traffic-free shared-use route 'behind' the houses along Hastings Road, joining up with BT1 and hopefully one day the cross-town LCWIP shared-use route.

BT11 – Market Square OBJECT
It would appear that these apartments would be on top of the existing retail buildings and would be mainly for the elderly. Concerns are that this could be overpowering in terms of bulk.
Future plans should address pavement parking by visitors to the area. Vehicles of all types regularly park either partially or fully on the pavement outside the existing business fronting the High Street.
There appears to be very little parking enforcement in Market Road, customers of the existing businesses, frequently park on yellow lines at the top of the steps adjacent to the library, in preference to using the
car parks.
The RDC comments “Ensure an active frontage is provided along Market Road.” imply that housing may be placed along the edge of Market Road? If so, there should be off-street parking for those buildings, perhaps in a similar way to the ‘parking lot’ and garages at Saxonwood Court (on the north side of Market Road)

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 lies in close proximity to nationally significant heritage assets, including:
• The Registered Battlefield (1066 Battle of Hastings)

Ancient Woodland and Biodiversity is at risk
The plan admits that there is risk from Surface Water, Flooding
Highway Safety and Infrastructure Capacity Given existing congestion and the proximity to Claverham Community College, there are lconcerns regarding pedestrian safety and traffic conflict.
Battle’s healthcare provision, school capacity and local services are already under pressure. The allocation does not secure clear, deliverable infrastructure improvements plus the water companies cannot guarantee water supply.
The impact of multiple allocations around Battle must be properly assessed to avoid suburbanisation of a town historic importance.

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 lies in close proximity to nationally significant heritage assets, including:
• The Registered Battlefield (1066 Battle of Hastings)

Ancient Woodland and Biodiversity is at risk
The plan admits that there is risk from Surface Water and Flooding
Highway Safety and Infrastructure Capacity Given existing congestion and the proximity to Claverham Community College, there are concerns regarding pedestrian safety and traffic conflict.
Battle’s healthcare provision, school capacity and local services are under pressure. The allocation does not secure clear, deliverable infrastructure improvements plus the water companies cannot guarantee water supply.
The impact of multiple allocations around Battle must be properly assessed to avoid suburbanisation of a town historic importance.

We worry about the provision of medical care with these developments. To support this new development we need new premises. We would ideally like a new build in Market Square. We are already functioning at maximum capacity before the current development of Battle has been finished. We will NOT be able to meet Battle's medical needs without serious consideration of our particular estate situation and to be able to future proof for the years ahead.

Dear Planning Policy Team,
Re: Draft Rother Local Plan (2025–2042) – Regulation 18 Consultation
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.
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.
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,
Thomas Wadeson