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

I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocations of the above sites. My property 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; badgers, grass snakes, buzzards, newts, 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.

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 220 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.

See attached.

See attached.

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.



Yours faithfully,

I am writing to formally submit my 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.
The current volume of traffic makes it very difficult to enter or exit driveways along Hastings Road and the increased volume these developments will undoubtedly create will only make this more dangerous. Add to this the fact that the 40mph speed limit is rarely adhered to — it's all increasing the risk of accidents.

2. Environmental Impact and Air Quality
These developments are proposed for areas within the High Weald National Landscape (AONB) and will have a negative impact on the wildlife habitat and natural greenfield area.

3. Infrastructure Deficits
The local infrastructure is already overstretched with G.P. & Dental surgeries struggling to cope with the current population. The increased demand these developments will bring is only going to create more stress on these services.
Basic services such as drainage, water supplies, power supplies etc. struggle to cope with the current demands therefore increased demands will only make this worse. Even if promises are made, services such as these rarely get upgraded sufficiently to cope with any increased demands.

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.



Yours faithfully,

BT3 - a new road is required, will this be an improvement of the existing road? If not, why lose green space when a road already exists. There is a wooded area to the south of the site that shouldn't be disturbed.
BT9 - "without compromising the remainder of the Green Gap" it would have been helpful to have the Green Gaps shown on the Policies map rather than having to look them up separately.
Will there also be a recommendation to review the speed limit on Marley Lane where the access to the site is proposed? It is currently national speed limit which would be dangerous for people walking out onto the proposed new footpath along the road.
BT10 - proximity to a bus stop which only has at best 1 bus an hour. ESCC need to be involved to provide additional services otherwise everyone will be using their car and this road will become congested.
BT11 - in principle I like the idea of developing this site. However this is one of the main car parks for the town, vital for parents dropping off children to school and accommodating tourists (on which the town depends). Loss of any car parking spaces would seriously affect residents and visitors so any new design should maintain the current level.
Accommodation for older residents shouldn't just be the focus for flats. There are young families that could also be accommodated.

In general, local people are crying out for affordable housing options, families and singles/couples. There is a perception that housing will be too expensive for those that actually want to live here. So although provision for affordable housing is given this often falls away during development due to rising costs. Policies must be firm in the provision of affordable housing or other options for renting or housing schemes.

lack of infrastructure. local roads at capacity for volume of traffic, irepairable harm to aonb

I strongly object to the proposed allocation of this site for approximately 250 dwellings. The site lies within the High Weald National Landscape, where Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy EN2 of the Rother District Local Plan Core Strategy require great weight to be given to conserving landscape character. The scale of development would result in significant and unavoidable harm.
The site is further constrained by ancient woodland and priority habitats. Under Paragraph 186 of the NPPF and Policy EN5, harm to irreplaceable habitats should be refused absent wholly exceptional circumstances, which have not been demonstrated.
Development would also harm the setting of the Glengorse Estate, a non-designated heritage asset identified in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan.
Finally, the site is poorly located in sustainability terms, with limited access to services and schools, leading to car dependency. The proposal is therefore unsound and should be rejected.

Battle for Trees objects to the destruction of greenfield and trees especially in a time of climate emergency. So the sites that are greenfield make no sense to be permitted:
BT1 -Object
BT2 -Object
BT6 - Object
BT7 - Object
BT9 - Object
BT10 - Object
BT11 -Object

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 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; badgers, grass snakes, buzzards, newts, 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 220 houses to the South of the A2100 would significantly increase the crossing risk.

Geological and Hydrogeological surveys on my neighbours 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 220 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.

Battle is an historic market town, sited in English countryside. If current plans continue Battle will lose more of our natural habitat, our local wildlife - already struggling - will be further marginalised and unprioritised. The town infrastructure cannot cope with even more development, in addition to the current multi- site development.
Look to brownfield sites across Rother, look to under utilised existing buildings before decimating yet more virgin countryside. Our natural local beauty creates the focus for Battle and locale as a tourist destination - if you carry on cementing over everything beautiful you will create a sterile and neutral environment - with no emotional or reparative benefit to those that live here.

Comments, Representations and Objections to
Policy Reference BT 10
of the Rother Local Plan 2025-2042.

Objection to the actual Drafting of BT10
The drafting of the Local plan should be looked at as a whole in respect of all of the Residential proposals within the Local plan and should have been drafted even-handedly AND consistently by the authors.
It clearly has NOT been.
BT10 is the most substantial development on the south side of Battle with direct continuous connection with the town of Battle [ BT2 being a further mile, beyond BT10 and away from the town centre, with no continuous strip development and in any event astride the border with Hastings- and probably outside Battle catchment areas for infrastructure -schools, surgeries etc].
The BT10 site is exactly a mile from the town centre.
1. There are 2 versions of the red-lined plans of the site, one of which is accurate and the other misleading. The first shows 2 narrow access points from Hastings Road each about the width of a house plot, with a substantial detached dwelling in between [No 124?].
The misleading one ignores the house in the middle and presents a v wide entrance, red-lining over the before-mentioned substantial dwelling suggesting that access would be wide and no problem onto an extremely busy fast traffic- moving, poorly lit road. Why the change ? Who made it?
Motive seems to be highly questionable.
2. Furthermore both the “Policy Text” and the “Supporting Text” drafting for BT10 displays , by omission, further bias; the effect of which is to suggest that BT10 has far less adverse effect.
Take a look at Texts referred to for BT1. Admittedly a much bigger site than BT 10. Those texts contain a considerable number of requirements and reservations that you can read for yourself. If they apply to BT1 then they doubly apply to BT10 , a site a mile away from the centre, but still likely to place considerable pressures on transport, commercial and educational and other infrastructural provisions. In addition to which as is mentioned later, a single-sided hedge encroached pavement, with limited and one-sided street lighting.
These flaws need to be corrected immediately before this Plan goes forward to demonstrate even a modicum of fairness.
The site is directly opposite a very busy entrance to another field which has been taken over with vans and cars accessing for storage facilities etc.

Objections to the actual Proposal of BT10
These objections are not based on NIMBY-ism, but based on logic, experience from having lived here for a number of years, and concern and affection for the history and character of Battle. These developments [not just BT10] will extensively and adversely affect all of these.
Traffic
It should be acknowledged that the council have in recent years refused a number of applications for development or access along this area of this road at Telham, predominantly, as we understand it, due to the dangers of fast moving traffic on the A2100, Hastings Road.
So what has changed ?
The road itself is already a danger and hazard to pedestrian traffic.
It does not suddenly become safe, without taking any improvement measure . This development will SUBSTANTIALLY increase traffic, pedestrians and, according to your plan, cycles.
The volume of through -traffic on this road. It has over the last 10 years increased exponentially. Fast moving and without any deterrent. The amount of through traffic through Battle increased at the time of the Junction Road closure and development on A21, Junction & Sedlescombe Road and despite the opening of the new traffic routes, it has not diminished nor returned to previous levels.
The suggestion of placing a roundabout at the entrance to this site is one of the more ludicrous in the Local Plan. It would lead to even more congestion on this road at busy times.
We suggest Council officials come to Telham at approx. 8.30 on a school/ work day when refuse collection is taking place. The queues REGULARLY extend from Battle High Street back to Telham and past this site entrance. It can take 45 mins from this site to deliver a child by car to Battle and Langton School. Add 200+ houses at BT1 and 65 at BT10, and it will be even longer to travel 1.5 miles.
The pedestrian infrastructure is already inadequate. For the majority of the route from the town to the site there is only single-sided pavement. Much of it with substantial [uncontrolled by the Council] hedge encroachment from private residences, narrowing the pavement further, making IMPOSSIBLE to walk either 2-abreast or single-abreast with a dog.
The street lighting is utterly inadequate, on one side only and often diminished by overhead uncontrolled vegetation.
Whereas other sites, notably BT1 appears to have impact assessments or road safety assessments . It seems NONE has been taken here at BT10.
Location
The site is one mile from the rail station and further from the other required infrastructure [surgery, schools, shops etc]. Any qualification or reservation of BT1 doubly applies to BT10.
 

The Site
The site itself is on the very edge of the protected area. The idea of a 15 metre buffer will protect that status is laughable, however it needs to be critically and scientifically examined and tested by impact assessment.
There is mention of keeping EXISTING hedgerows and trees to all boundaries. Existing AT WHAT DATE? What is there to stop the current owner or the developer, removing those trees and hedges NOW and then proceeding with planning applications etc.
Also what is good for nature should also be good for existing residents. There is no mention of a buffer between existing residences and
The site itself is 5.57 ha of which only 2.29 is to be built on, indicative that more than 50% is not suitable to be built. We would agree that a large part is unsuitable the houses will be crammed into the “top corner”.
Furthermore, the site is clearly unsuitable as it is subject to flooding . There are 2 clear underground natural water courses visible with topographical maps and photographs make clear.
For all these reasons I strongly object.

Objection to Site BT1

Traffic and safety: Additional access onto the A2100 and surrounding roads will worsen congestion and increase accident risk.
Density: A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate for this rural edge-of-town location.
Environmental impact: The proximity to ancient woodland and priority habitats means development would cause significant ecological harm.

Objection to Site BT7

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

I categorically object to the inclusion of sites BT7 and BT1 in the Local Plan. Developing these sites would cause irreversible harm to Battle's heritage, landscape, and local infrastructure.

Site BT7: Land at Almonry Farm
Heritage Impact: The allocation of 80 new dwellings on this site threatens irreplaceable heritage assets. It sits dangerously close to the 1066 Battle of Hastings Registered Battlefield, the Battle Conservation Area, and the Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse. Urbanising this historic fieldscape will permanently destroy the setting of these national treasures.

Environmental Destruction: The site is constrained by adjacent Ancient Woodland and Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat. Development here contradicts the Council's priority of nature recovery and biodiversity net gain.

Flooding Risks: Parts of this site are already at risk from surface water flooding. Building over this greenfield land will only exacerbate drainage and flooding issues for surrounding properties.


Site BT1: Land south of Hastings Road
Inappropriate Density and Scale: Proposing 220 new dwellings at an urban density of 40 dwellings per hectare is entirely incongruous with the character of the High Weald National Landscape. This represents a massive, sprawling urban extension that will decimate the rural fringe of Battle.

Traffic and Highway Safety: Creating new vehicular access points onto Hastings Road (the A2100) and Glengorse will cause severe traffic congestion and safety hazards. The A2100 is a primary route that already suffers from heavy traffic, and adding hundreds of daily vehicle movements in a transition speed zone is highly irresponsible.

Ecological Damage: Similar to BT7, this site is heavily constrained by Ancient Woodland, priority habitats (including a High Weald Wildflower Meadow), and surface water flood risks. Large-scale development here cannot be justified against the environmental cost. The current Local Plan proposals for Battle represent an aggressive overdevelopment that sacrifices our national heritage, protected landscapes, and local infrastructure for the sake of arbitrary housing targets.

I urge the Council to drastically reconsider these allocations, remove sites BT1 and BT7 from the plan, and focus exclusively on sustainable, brownfield-led regeneration.

Site BT7: Land at Almonry Farm, Battle
I strongly object to the allocation of Site BT7 for 80 dwellings. This site is of immense historical and environmental significance:

Heritage Impact: The site is adjacent to the Registered Battlefield of the 1066 Battle of Hastings. Development here would cause substantial harm to the setting of this internationally significant site and the Battle Conservation Area.

Listed Buildings: The proposed access via Tollgates threatens the setting of the Grade II Listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse.

Biodiversity: The eastern boundary adjoins Ancient Woodland and Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat. This area is a haven for protected species, and the proposed mitigations are wholly inadequate to protect such a sensitive ecosystem from the pressures of a 80-home development.

Flooding: Parts of the site are already identified as being at risk from surface water flooding. Development will only exacerbate these risks for neighboring properties.


Site BT1: Land south of Hastings Road, Battle
I also strongly object to the allocation of BT1 for approximately 220 dwellings.

Traffic and Safety: The proposed access points onto Hastings Road (A2100) and through the Glengorse estate are deeply concerning. The A2100 is already a congested primary artery; adding the traffic from 220 homes at a point where speed limits transition will create significant safety hazards.

Density: The proposed density of 40 dwellings per hectare is entirely inappropriate for a greenfield site within the High Weald National Landscape. Such urban-level density is a direct contradiction to the statutory duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area.

Environment: Like BT7, this site contains Priority Habitats (Wildflower Meadows) and adjoins Ancient Woodland. The loss of this greenfield land will result in a significant net loss for local biodiversity.

The Local Plan in its current form fails to respect the constraints of Battle's unique topography, heritage, and "National Landscape" status. I urge the Council to remove sites BT1 and BT7 from the plan and instead focus on a strategy that prioritizes brownfield redevelopment and respects the infrastructure limits of our historic town.

I wish to register my strongest possible objection to the following site allocations. I believe these sites should be removed from the Local Plan entirely.

BT7: Land at Almonry Farm (80 Dwellings)The allocation of Land at Almonry Farm for 80 dwellings is a profound error. This site is of immense historical and environmental significance:

Heritage and History: The site is adjacent to the Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse and sits on the edge of the 1066 Battlefield. Any development here would cause irreparable harm to the setting of these world-renowned heritage assets.
Landscape and Ancient Woodland: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape and contains Ancient Woodland and Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat. A buffer of 15 meters is wholly insufficient to protect these irreplaceable habitats from the urbanizing effects of 80 new homes.
Flooding Risks: Parts of this site are already identified as being at risk from surface water flooding. Adding significant hardstanding will only exacerbate runoff and increase the flood risk to lower-lying areas of the town.


BT1: Land at Hastings Road and Glengorse (Indicative 40 dph)The proposal for development on the southern fringe of Battle at a density of 40 dwellings per hectare is entirely inappropriate for this sensitive location.
Traffic and Safety: Hastings Road (A2100) is already a major congestion point. The addition of new vehicular accesses here and at Glengorse will create severe safety hazards, particularly at the transition points between different speed limits.
Urban Density: A density of 40 dph is far too high for a site within the High Weald National Landscape. It ignores the local character and will result in an "urban sprawl" effect that undermines the separate identity of Battle and the Hastings Fringes.
Biodiversity Loss: The site consists of fields and paddocks that serve as vital green corridors for local wildlife. The proposed development will lead to the destruction of priority habitats and historic field boundaries.


The current Local Plan represents an existential threat to the character and sustainability of Battle. I urge the Council to reconsider these allocations and instead focus on a strategy that prioritizes the protection of our National Landscape and directs growth to more appropriate, sustainable locations.

B10. I walk daily on this piece of land, it is teeming with wildlife. This will be an environmental disaster for our area. This is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Go and build somewhere else.

Proposed Site Allocations in Battle (Policies BT1 to BT11)

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

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

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

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

I strongly oppose the allocation of this site for 220 dwellings.

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

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

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

Objection to Site BT7:
I object in full to the proposed development of this site for 80 dwellings.

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

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

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

Flood risk: Development may increase surface water runoff
Increased traffic near busy junctions and disruption to footpaths used by Claverham students raises additional risks.

Objection to Site BT1:
I strongly oppose the allocation of this site for 220 dwellings.

Additional access onto the A2100 and surrounding roads will worsen congestion.

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

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

Objection to Site BT7:
I object in full to the proposed development of this site for 80 dwellings.

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

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

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

Development may increase surface water runoff and exacerbate local flooding.

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

The road cannot take this proposed development. The unmonitored speeding on Hastings Rd makes turning out of any junction or entrance/exit dangerous. The combined speed limit and frequent haulage trucks using the A2100 means the braking distance is large and will result in fatalities. There is no pathway on the side of the road that the development will be on and crossing the road on foot isn’t a safe option. A zebra crossing would be ignored by fast traffic. This happens at Lower Lake along the road and that’s in a slow moving traffic area. There is ancient woodland and biodiversity that will be endangered. The field is frequently flooded. Where do you propose all the residents go to school/GP/dentist when all are full?

Comments on BT1
AONB - Protected landscape and greenfield site - AONB should only be developed in exceptional circumstances - there are numerous non AONB in Rother which could be developed
 
Overdevelopment and landscape harm
This site would lead to additional pollution, noise & traffic impacting the residents of Battle
 
Infrastructure - no allowance for additional school places or GP provision, placing additional strain on existing resources

Residential amenity impacts: For nearby residents, an allocation of this size is likely to introduce material effects from new built form and activity at the settlement edge, including loss of outlook, increased enclosure, privacy impacts from overlooking, noise and disturbance from gardens and access roads, vehicle movements and light spill.

Site ref: BT10
The road cannot take this proposed development. The unmonitored speeding on Hastings Rd makes turning out of any junction or entrance/exit dangerous. The combined speed limit and frequent haulage trucks using the A2100 means the braking distance is large and will result in fatalities. There is no pathway on the side of the road that the development will be on and crossing the road on foot isn’t a safe option. A zebra crossing would be ignored by fast traffic. This happens at Lower Lake along the road and that’s in a slow moving traffic area. There is ancient woodland and biodiversity that will be endangered. The field is frequently flooded. Where do you propose all the residents go to school/GP/dentist when all are full?

I strongly object to bt7 and bt11. Battle used to be a quiet small town before Rother decided to grant areas of outstanding beauty to building companies to destroy for “affordable housing”. And here we are again , Rother again attempting to destroy even more areas of outstanding beauty and history. Bt7 is an area of farmland set behind asten fields and hampden close with a single access road going down to it. Having already destroyed land behind claverham way there is already a lot of cars using tollgates to exit onto the main road and the proposal to build even more houses for cars to exit onto north trade road is ludicrous. This area also provides a path behind battle so people do not have to use the main road ! As for bt11 I have no words . Centre of town to be destroyed. Stupid.

I object to the proposed new housing developments due to the clear lack of supporting infrastructure. Existing roads are already congested, and additional traffic will worsen delays, increase pollution, and reduce safety. Local schools are oversubscribed, healthcare services are stretched, and public transport is insufficient to meet current demand. The proposals would also decimate nearby areas of natural beauty, eroding habitats and community character. Without significant, guaranteed investment in essential services, this development risks unsustainable pressure and long-term harm to residents’ quality of life and environmental sustainability. Responsible planning must align growth with infrastructure, protect nature, and preserve community wellbeing.

Formal Objection to Proposed Development at Site BT7, Battle

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at site BT7 in Battle. My concerns are rooted not only in planning policy, but in the lived reality of those of us who call this town home.

Battle is not a suburb waiting to be expanded. It is a historic town defined by its landscape, farmland, and heritage. The proposed development fundamentally misunderstands the character and purpose of this place.

Traffic and Road Infrastructure
The road network in Battle is already operating at or beyond capacity. Congestion is a daily issue, particularly around key routes and school drop-off times. The access roads proposed for this development are narrow, rural lanes and residential streets that are simply not designed to accommodate a significant increase in traffic.

As a local resident, I regularly see the impact of congestion near Claverham Community College, where school traffic already places considerable strain on surrounding roads. Introducing up to 100 new homes — and the associated volume of cars — would place an unsustainable burden on these routes, worsening congestion, increasing safety risks, and significantly affecting the quality of life for existing residents.

Impact on Heritage and Landscape
The proposed site includes land associated with Almonry Farm, historically linked to Battle Abbey. This is not just open land — it is part of the historic setting of one of the most important heritage sites in the country.

The surrounding fields, ancient woodland, and hedgerows form a vital green buffer that protects the setting of Battle Abbey and preserves the town’s identity. The loss of Mansers Shaw and Saxon Wood, whether directly or through the secondary impacts of increased traffic and human activity, would represent an irreversible erosion of this landscape.

Loss of High-Quality Agricultural Land
The site consists of Grade A agricultural land that is actively farmed for livestock and hay production. Once developed, this land is lost forever. At a time when food security and sustainable land use are increasingly important, it is short-sighted to sacrifice productive farmland for development that is not clearly justified.

Lack of Demonstrable Housing Need
This proposal is for a major development of approximately 100 homes. Yet there is no clear evidence of exceptional housing need in Battle that would justify development on this scale.

Recent developments, such as those at Lillybank, already show signs of oversupply, with properties remaining unsold or reduced in price. In addition, the approved Blackfriars development will deliver around 200 new homes. There are also numerous existing properties on the market that have remained unsold for extended periods.

This raises a fundamental question: why is further large-scale development being proposed here?

Risk of Urban Sprawl
Approving this development would set a dangerous precedent. The wider site extends to over 18 hectares, and permission for 100 homes could open the door to further expansion, gradually eroding the distinct boundary between town and countryside.

This is how urban sprawl begins — incrementally, but irreversibly.

Strain on Local Infrastructure
Local infrastructure is already under pressure. Access to GP appointments is increasingly difficult, and NHS dental provision is severely limited. There is no clarity on how additional demand from 100 new households would be accommodated.

Similarly, there is no clear plan for additional school places or other essential services. Without this, the development risks placing further strain on already overstretched resources.

Flooding and Environmental Concerns
Parts of the proposed site are known to experience surface water flooding, with underground springs and natural drainage features present. The removal of woodland and vegetation will disrupt the water balance of the area, particularly given the clay soil conditions.

This raises serious concerns about increased flood risk and ground instability, which could have long-term consequences for both new and existing homes.

Conclusion
This proposal does not represent sustainable or appropriate development. It threatens to overwhelm local infrastructure, damage historically significant landscapes, destroy productive farmland, and fundamentally alter the character of Battle.

I urge the Council to carefully consider the cumulative and long-term impacts of this development. Decisions made today will shape the future of Battle for generations to come.

There are alternative sites that could be considered — ones that do not compromise the town’s heritage, environment, and identity.

Battle is a place of history, nature, and community. It should not be treated as an opportunity for unchecked expansion.

Please listen to the voices of local residents and protect the future of this unique town.

Firstly, the only plan I support is the Rutherford site. More employment options cannot be bad as long as it's suitable. However, I object to all other proposals.
Battle is a small town with struggling infrastructure as it is. The roads cannot cope, they are a broken with more potholes and defects on a daily basis, small GP surgeries, limited school and nursery places, sewerage systems that cannot cope with waste being pumped in to the rivers and sea, fresh water systems that's also cannot cope (hosepipe ban from summer of 2025 only lifted in 2026) and not to mention limited employment options in the area. Battle simply will not cope with another 1500+ houses. Just a reminder too that Blackfriars has gone so well, hasn't it.....?
Improve infrastructure first and then think about building more houses to line the council's pockets.

BT10

We do not need any more housing built on Greenland in Battle. We have two doctors surgery’s that are full to the brim, we have one dentist, one school and a tiny town that barely fits the road and lorry’s in it.

There is also a HUGE site, that hasn’t been finished, hasn’t been occupied by residents and has been a total cock up from the start and hell to the residents that back onto this site. We do not or want any more sites.

We have enough, we want to protect battles history, wildlife and protect the residents of battle too.

I wish to formally object to the proposed allocation BT2: Land at Breadsell, Battle.

The site contains significant constraints, including the area to the north shown with black crosshatching, which appears to indicate land that is unsuitable or restricted for development. This raises serious concerns regarding the deliverability of the site and whether the proposed capacity can be achieved without causing harm elsewhere within the allocation.

Where constraints limit development in one part of the site, there is a clear risk that development pressure will be displaced into more environmentally sensitive areas, particularly the adjoining woodland to the south and east. This woodland contains long-established habitats, steep valley topography and multiple watercourses, including tributary streams which feed directly into the wider Marline Valley system.

The hydrological connection between this site and Marline Valley is of particular concern. Development on BT2 would increase surface water runoff, alter natural drainage patterns, and introduce pollutants into these tributary streams. These impacts would not be confined to the development site itself but would extend downstream, potentially affecting the ecological integrity of Marline Valley Woods, a designated Local Wildlife Site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This is contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which require protection of valued landscapes and avoidance of harm to biodiversity and irreplaceable habitats.

Furthermore, the woodland adjacent to the site supports a range of species, including birds of prey, owls, mammals such as foxes, and potentially protected species. The presence of ancient woodland indicators such as bluebells and orchids suggests that this is a long-established and sensitive ecosystem. Any encroachment, fragmentation, or indirect impacts (including noise, lighting and increased recreational pressure) would result in a loss of biodiversity and disruption of ecological networks.

The NPPF is clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. No such justification has been demonstrated.

In addition, the site is a valued local green space used by residents for walking, recreation, and wellbeing. The loss of this space would have a detrimental impact on the local community and reduce access to natural environments.

Given the constraints of the site, the potential displacement of development into sensitive woodland, and the wider impacts on the Marline Valley ecosystem, I do not believe that allocation BT2 is sound or deliverable in accordance with national planning policy. I therefore strongly object to its inclusion in the Local Plan.