I strongly object to the new development proposals largely due Ron lack of road infrastructure, plus the damage of an additional 1600 cars using the historic High Street, a huge number of listed buildings and two nationally important sites.
I believe there will be a negative impact on current residents which will include, destruction of the AONB/ High Weald, pressure on local school and doctors surgeries.

Regarding BT2
Objections based on the following:
1. Major potential harm to Marline Valley Woods SSSI and its flora and fauna habitat
2. To my knowledge no environmental monitoring has yet been done.
3. The scheme is dependent on the breadsell wood scheme going ahead, which would have similar if not identical reasons for objections and disapproval
4. Huge impact on the landscape, historical woodland and agricultural land, with important character through the countryside being lost.
5. A2100 Hastings Road is already not very safe, in poor disrepair and is already very busy, plus there are poor footpath and cycling options. This makes any proposed development car reliant, which will substantially increase traffic and cause congestion on this busy road which is the main route from Battle to the Conquest Hospital. The increase traffic will also be a potential hazard to pedestrians who regularly use the one and only footpath
6. Impact on the habitat of protected species nearby in Marline and Breadsell woods (hazel dormice, bats, and great crested newts) who will be threatened, not to mention impact on existing Badger sets, nesting birds of prey and woodpeckers, deer, and bees all of which have habitat present in this area
7. Impact on nearby ancient woodlands, once this has gone it can’t be restored
8. Actual scheme is poorly linked to Battle making it effectively an extension of Hastings. Not appropriate for a Housing scheme to benefit battle.

Batte roads and infustucta can't cope with the traffic which we have already, when blackfirars opens it will be even busier with no new schools or doctors in place. Building further houses in a small town with grade listed buildings is detrimental to the town.

I object to so many new housing developments in Battle as there is no plan for improving the traffic infrastructure, increasing school capacity for both primary and secondary schools or improving public transport or access to doctors. The high street is blocked daily morning and evening with the huge amount of traffic coming through and this will only become worse. I am concerned for the damage this is also doing to the ancient timber framed buildings along the high street (which shake whenever large vehicles come through or when traffic sits idling) and also the environmental impact of many more people and cars in the town.

Looking at all the plans and amount of houses that are proposed it is frightening apart from the extra traffic that will entail going up and down the High Street with the effect on the beautiful buildings abd Battle Abbey itself . It is the fumes that are already horrendous in the high street. The proposed development in Marley Lane ...Marley Lane is narrow it is enough problems getting up and down as it is without about 1000 cars going up and down . I have been getting really bad chests since thd new development already with all the lorries going up and down it and extra traffic from the Sainsbury's malarkey..so it must be effecting young people aswell. Greenfield sites I thought could never be touched? Why is that large development going in between Claverham and B&L ? All that fumes pollution to two schools apart from the schools arnt bigger enough to cope with influx of pupils. South East Water can't cope as it is with sewage and water pipes so how is it going to cope with 1000s more homes ...we need a new reservoir first ..(..Coombe Valley should have been one ) before any sort of houses being built ! Also build another hospital first BEFORE houses so in can cope ...the waiting lists are very long its scarey I know this as I work there.
Please please counsellors think before any building of houses build infrastructure first it makes sense if you have to build houses.

Battle is an historic unique town that needs to be protected and its character preserved. The town has seen significant housing development in recent years including Lilybank and Nightingale with Blackfriars and Conquerors Gate currently under construction, NTRd without any improvement or increase in local amenities and services which puts pressure on the existing service providers.

The proposed developments in the Battle area particularly Land at Almonry Farm BT7 and Battle Market Square BT11 will:-

undermine the historic character and heritage of the town; they are very close /abut the Battle Conservation area , Grade II listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse, Registered Battlefield, Battle Abbey. The land sits within the High Weald National Landscape

put further pressure on the local facilities and services particularly GP surgeries, schools and local infrastructure - nowhere in the draft consultation addresses how these needs will be met

result in loss of further greenfield land within the High Weald National Landscape

have an adverse impact on Ancient woodland and protected species

raise significant traffic and pedestrian issues - access via Tollgates would add significant traffic to North Trade Road and the A2100, close to Claverham College.

Battle Market Square - the proposal is to expand retailing provide 52 new dwellings (apartments)

In addition this proposed development would:-

result in significant loss of car parking. The car park is heavily used by parents dropping off and collecting children who attend Battle and Langton School. The loss of this parking space would create considerable traffic and pedestrian issues the surrounding locality.

lead to a loss of a local market facility and a much used public open space

undermine the historic character and heritage of the town given its proximity to the Almonry, Battle Museum

Ref BT1
I am concerned this proposal will cause increased traffic congestion
Impact on road safety, school children already have to cross a busy road from the bus stop.
Impact on wild life and habitat.
Flood risk and drainage concerns.

Bt1 to bt11
Objection applies to all sites
Battle town and surrounding does not have the infrastructure to cope with any extra development, not enough roads, parking , water and sewage.
For all greenfield sites, permanent loss of bio diversity, irreparable harm to AONB

Site BT7
I believe this site to be unsuitable for development for the following reasons.
1.the land forms part of the historical setting of Battle Abbey one of the most important historic landscapes in the UK.
2. Loss of a habitat that supports wildlife & is close to ancient woodland.
3.access via Tollgates would significantly increase traffic on to North Trade Road close to a school where childrens safety is already an issue. At least two children have been clipped by cars in the last year.
Congestion both in and out of the town, would also increase.
4. Infrastructure pressure is already being felt within schools, GPs surgeries and local services. This development with others would make this even worse.
5. Loss of land within the high Weald landscape leading to urban sprawl. Once greenfield land is built on, there’s no going back, it’s irreversible.

Site BT1
Vehicle access: at Maryland - junction close to a bend in Hastings Road, PP previously refused for this reason.
At Glengorse - junction very near bend, busy road already and used for school access.
A2100 is already very busy, this development together with all the other proposed developments will overload it.
Pedestrian access: as there is footway only on opposite side of Battle Hill/Hastings Road, pedestrian crossings would have to be provided both at Glengorse and Maryland, both close to junctions and on a busy road.
Environmental and wildlife: designated green belt in Battle neighbourhood plan, this area is important landscape and wildlife habitat.
Schools: the location is a long walk from Primary School - a new school this end of town should be provided.

Please do not approve this application as you are building on green fields. There is also not enough infrastructure (only two doctors surgeries which are full along with dentists) in Battle to accommodate this planning request. The historic town does not have the roads to cope with extra cars, the primary schools and secondary schools are full to overflowing. Pupils would need to travel further afield to attend schools which the roads cannot take. This planning application needs to fail. Kind regards Peter Bickley

The reasons I purchased my property was I loved the views of the surrounding countryside and hearing the wildlife.
BT7 would ruin the beautiful landscape, I love hearing and seeing the wildlife life when using the public footpaths
The area proposed is often water logged and building on this area would significantly increase surface water flooding risk. The loss of the greenfield land within the high Weald nation landscape will affect the wildlife and impact on the ancient woodlands. The increased traffic will also be detrimental to the health of locals and will impact pedestrian safety via tollgates as many children from the local school should be safe to walk to and from school. The increase in population will add pressure to local services like GP, schools and local infrastructure. The housing is unlikely to be unaffordable to those first time buyers.
Battle already attracts high volumes of tourists who come to see the 1066 Abbey and Battlefields not more housing which is not in keeping with towns feel

Extending housing development at Breadsell Farm, Telham, when there a total lack of infrastructure in the nearby area; virtually no public transport; significantly affects a Site of Special Scientific Interest at Marline woods and which extends right up to almost the main road - what is the point of them if not protected?; absolutely no consideration of wildlife; diminishes any area distinction between Hastings/St Leonards and Battle/Crowhurst as housing will simply merge from one town into the other. The area abuts the High Weald and can be seen from miles around towards Beachy Head and the South Downs and will create a housing scar. Brown field sites, empty properties and other better suitable site should be used.

To: Rother District Council Planning Department

Re: Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy BT1, BT8, BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)
Date: 21st March 2026

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


1. Traffic Congestion and Safety on Hastings Road

Hastings Road (A2100) is already at breaking point. Traffic is backed up every morning and evening, creating a bottleneck that cannot accommodate the additional vehicle movements generated by a minimum of 250 new dwellings (sites mentioned above). The Battle Neighbourhood Plan (Battle NP) explicitly identifies traffic congestion as a critical weakness of the parish. Adding a major junction to this existing chaos without significant infrastructure upgrades is negligent.
Junction Interference and "Staggered" Conflict At a distance of less than 200 metres, these two major junctions will interfere with one another. Turning movements into BT1 (250 dwellings) will frequently be blocked by "tailback" traffic exiting or entering Blackfriars (210+ dwellings). This creates a high risk of "rear-end" collisions and "side-swipe" accidents as drivers attempt to navigate emerging traffic from two major hubs in such a short span.
The 30mph to 40mph Transition Danger The sites sit at a critical transition point where the speed limit increases from 30mph to 40mph.
• Acceleration Risk: Vehicles traveling outbound (towards Hastings) are legally accelerating exactly where the BT1 entrance is proposed.
• Braking Distance: Vehicles entering the 30mph zone from the south (inbound) often carry higher speeds before decelerating.
Placing two high-volume junctions in a high-speed transition zone is fundamentally unsafe. The NPPF Paragraph 115 requires that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users." Given the topography and speed transition here, this requirement cannot be met.





2. Environmental Impact and Air Quality
Unjustified Harm to the National Landscape (AONB) and Greenfield Land
• Greenfield Loss: BT1 proposes building on 11.09 hectares of Greenfield land. This directly contradicts the Battle NP's vision to prioritise brownfield sites and protect the countryside.
• National Landscape (AONB) Impact: The site is within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB). Under NPPF Paragraph 190, National Landscapes are afforded the highest level of protection. A density of 40 dwellings per hectare is urban, not rural, and is entirely out of keeping with the character of the High Weald. Major development should only occur in exceptional circumstances (NPPF Paragraph 189).
• Wildlife and Trees: The proposal threatens "fields, paddocks" and "High Weald Wildflower Meadow Priority Habitat". The construction of a minimum of 250 homes will inevitably sever wildlife corridors and destroy hedgerows, regardless of "buffer zone" promises.
Flooding Risk and Surface Water (NPPF Paragraph 170) The policy text for BT1 explicitly acknowledges a "surface water flooding risk to the southern boundaries of the site". Replacing natural drainage (fields) with impermeable surfaces (housing/roads) on 11 hectares of land already identified as a flood risk is reckless planning that endangers existing properties downhill, contradicting NPPF Paragraph 170 and failing the current Climate Resilience tests.
3. Infrastructure Deficits and Delivery Failures
Critical Lack of Infrastructure (GP, Dentistry, Schools) The town lacks the capacity to support this population increase. The NPPF (Para 35 and 20) requires Local Plans to set out other infrastructure required (Education, health, transport, flood and water management)
• Medical: East Sussex is currently facing a documented "dentistry crisis" with reports indicating 8 in 10 NHS dentists are not accepting new patients. GP practices are similarly reporting "increasing demand" and workforce challenges that make appointments difficult to secure.
• Schools: The Council’s own supporting text for BT1 admits the site is "some distance from primary schools" and implies a reliance on "active travel" which is unrealistic given the topography and traffic conditions.
• Precedent: We have seen this failure before. The Blackfriars development was approved with promises of infrastructure that have been slow to materialise or insufficient.
The Blackfriars Precedent: "Watered Down" Commitments We have no confidence in the "policy compliant" assurances for BT1 because we have seen the Council fail to deliver on similar promises at Blackfriars. That development was sold as a "gold standard" of green, high-tech housing. However, documents show it faced an £8 million funding gap and underwent "redesign" to "better align with market demand" and "improve efficiencies" due to rising costs. If the flagship Blackfriars project had to be value-engineered due to market pressures, the high-quality, landscape-led masterplan promised for BT1 is likely to be similarly watered down once permission is granted.
Conclusion
This proposal expands development to 250 units on a Greenfield National Landscape site amidst an infrastructure crisis. The plan is unsound as it ignores statutory environmental duties and local experience. I urge the Council to remove development pressure from this area before progressing the plan further. Please don’t ruin our town and the wonderful feel of our home, there are plenty of brownfield areas which should be assessed first before destroying the green belt which would be irreversible.
Yours faithfully,
Faye Manktelow

BT2-
Lack of infrastructure. Access road liable to flooding. Very close to some protected woods. The local roads won't be able to cope to the extra traffic. Also its one of the main routes into Hastings and likely they'll be temporary road works need to be in place while connecting to the water supply etc etc.
RB1, RB2, RB3 -
Traffic exit a huge concern especially with regards to George Hill would be a nightmare due to the location of both the nursery school and primary school.
Not suitable infrastructure in place to welcome new people.

RB6A and RB6B
Need to reduce the amount of dwellings as the site will now be bigger. Robertsbridge infrastructure just won't be able to cope.

Objections to BT1
Inadequate pedestrian and cycle access to Battle: planners need to attempt to cross the road by foot from Battle Hill into Glengorse to really understand the dangers and lack of provision. Access across Battle Hill has been planned for years but not yet been achievable - what new proposals are there for this. Hastings Road is 40mph and an HGV route and not suited to regular cycling.
Inadequate highways: congestion up Battle Hill is a regular feature and that is without the new residents of the Blackfriars 200 homes. How can additional homes be considered when current issues aren't resolved?
Inadequate bus service: 2 hourly bus service into Battle or Hastings! And not in the evenings! And that has to be accessed across this difficult Hastings Rd.
Inadequate infrastructure: we still have to go to Paddock Wood to our dentist as there's no nhs dentist available in Battle; the local primary school is not only full but over a mile away; doctor's appointments, unless urgent, are several weeks' wait. No doubt there will be promises of more infrastructure, but funding for this must be found before more housing is built
This site is within the High Weald National Landscape (AONB) and supports a wide range of natural habitats and ancient woodland which will be destroyed by further development. We need to keep our greenfield sites and ancient sites. A minimum 15m semi-natural buffer to the ancient woodland is required in line with Natural England’s advice but reports indicate that in some cases more significant buffers may be required, especially for a major residential developments. Western edge of the Glengorse Estate, around the current stables/paddocks, is adjacent to PRoW Battle FP100, so visual amenity for walkers will be a high concern - as for all who visit this area.

Glengorse Estate is the site of a SEND school. It is currently a very safe site for children with behavioural and emotional issues - especially when they are not coping with school and walk out. Surrounding the estate with 200 homes will hugely increase their vulnerability and raise safeguarding issues for the school and those around.
Visibility from the South Downs: this site can be seen from the South Downs, so unacceptably would visually impact much further afield if a housing development should occur.

Objection to BT10
I feel very strongly that this not a suitable site for development. The site is surrounded by an area of ancient woodland and is a site which has a flood risk as you state in your proposal.A2100 Hastings Road is a very busy road already and the addition of more traffic, pedestrians and cyclists to this already busy road is frankly ludicrous and possibly dangerous for vehicles using the proposed entrances to the site. The proposal to install a pedestrian crossing along this road would causing more disruption to an already over used road. I feel the residents already along this road are being very unfairly treated as a development to the rear of their properties would cause significant devaluation especially as many of the new properties will be designated as affordable housing. The site itself is significantly out of Battle and not near any amenities.

BT10
Not a sustainable and valid site for development:
Dangerous proposed vehicular access onto A2100. Infrastructure not suitable to 65 additional dwellings with vehicles onto a 40mph stretch of road.
New pedestrian and cycle links proposed - along narrow and frankly dangerous road conditions.
Area of ancient woodland. Huge impact on High Weald ANOB which has the same status as a national park. Already dismissed plans three times in recent years as unsuitable and harmful site.
Destruction of natural habitat including bats, hedgehogs and foxes.
Huge flood risk site with poor topography, central natural stream and underwater table.
Suggestion of building sensitive to existing development is not suitable for us as longstanding residents and will destroy the area.
Poor proposed site due to distance from local amenities, doctors surgery, railway station and schools. Poor already existing transport links. This site location has no relationship with the town of Battle.

am writing to formally object to the above-referenced planning application. My objection is based on the irreversible harm the proposed development would cause to a designated Ancient Woodland, the conflict with both local and national planning policies, and the significant legal precedent already set by the Secretary of State regarding this specific site.
1. Conflict with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Under Paragraph 186(c) of the NPPF, planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including Ancient Woodland, unless there are "wholly exceptional reasons" and a suitable compensation strategy. The current application provides no such "exceptional" justification. Ancient woodland is a finite resource; once disturbed by the infrastructure required for "BT2" (including access, trenching, and light pollution), its unique ecosystem cannot be recovered.
2. Significant Legal Precedent (Secretary of State Decision)
This site has a documented history of planning refusals. Notably, the Secretary of State previously dismissed appeals for development at this location, explicitly citing the ecological value of the woodland and the detrimental impact on the character of the area. Since the land remains classified as Ancient Woodland and its status as a Priority Habitat has not changed, there is no material change in circumstances that would justify a reversal of the Secretary of State’s prior ruling. To approve this application would be to ignore a settled legal and planning consensus.
3. Impact on High Weald National Landscape (AONB)
The site falls within a highly protected landscape. The introduction of "BT2" infrastructure would represent an urbanizing intrusion into a sensitive natural buffer. The development would degrade the "dark skies" and tranquil character of Hoads Wood, which serves as a vital green corridor for protected species, including Hazel Dormice and various rare invertebrates known to inhabit this specific woodland.
4. Cumulative Impact and Irreplaceability
We have seen the devastating impact of unauthorized activity in Hoads Wood in recent years. This application seeks to formalize development that will further fragment the woodland. Engineering works, including the installation of poles or underground cabling, risk damaging the complex root systems (mycelium) and ancient soil structures that define this habitat.
Conclusion:
In light of the irreplaceability of the habitat, the previous dismissal of development by the Secretary of State, and the lack of exceptional public benefit, I urge the Council to refuse this application.

Battle farmland is home to many species and animals. This land needs to be protected. It is on the boundary of Battle woodland. Residents that back onto the fields have a Planning Right To Light and these proposed new builds would obstruct this right.

BT1 BT2 BT7 BT8 BT10
The biggest concern and obstacles are the sizes of these site plans and number of houses. Increaseing the number of cars on existing and fractured roads constantly needing repair, all of the above sites require construction vehicles and once built, family cars all using the main trunk road A271 ( North trade road) any further work / traffic on this road will effect economy when people cant get to work and schools or are severely delayed due to roadworks and general congestion. The 100s to thousands more people living in or on the outskirts of town will need to get to work and schools aswell as everyone else , how is
this going to work? will need to rely on the existing infrastructure which can not cope.The historic town of battle is a tourist attraction, people would be put off coming here if it becomes over developed and more congested .it will not become a nice place to live with only one doctors and roads that are already under strain .
Greenbelt areas and places that people love to walk and enjoy are a necessity for human health not a privilege this must be a priority.
If the government is putting the pressure on local councils to fulfill its housing quota 1st look at empty houses. Are new houses going to sell and are they affordable, lots of houses of all different prices are not selling at the moment. Look at brownfield sites.
Look at areas such as John's cross with direct access into the a21 build your houses out of town far enough not to be detrimental to existing areas but close enough to be able to use shopping facilities etc bringing money into town but not breaking the town . When these extra houses are built look at building a additional health clinic and bus route to support the new community.
Water supply's, can south east water cope with the demand of hundreds of new houses .
Infrastructure needs to be built before the houses.
Large trees That have taken 50 + years to grow provide a root system that protects our ground from flooding and provides us with cleaner air these trees need a TPO on them to protect them and us. Development cant just rip these out and plant young trees as this does not protect our ground for many years .

Good afternoon , I object to this planning as I myself have lived in battle all my life and have now a young family myself .
I’m concerned for the future of battle and my children.
Putting this many house will put pressure on our doctors and schools.
Ancient woodlands with wonderful wild life . Behide me in these fields are bats , foxes , lambs and sheep and much more .
I take my children that way to school it would be a shame and an eye sore to put houses there so please dnt allow this for battle we have enough residents in battle

BT10 & BT1
I am writing to object to the proposed development these developments. The existing infrastructure is already inadequate, with current traffic levels causing congestion, poor visibility, and safety concerns. The road cannot cope now, and additional properties will significantly worsen the situation, particularly for residents accessing and exiting their homes.

There is also no clear provision for essential services, such as healthcare, placing further strain on an already stretched local system. Furthermore, the development threatens valuable biodiversity, including ancient woodland and historically significant 1066 landscape. A minimal buffer of 15 metres is insufficient to protect these sensitive environments.

Overall, this proposal fails to address critical infrastructure, safety, and environmental concerns and should be reconsidered.

Battle can not have this many houses, the town is not big enough, families will not buy houses, if they can't get there kids in schools, the dentist here is not taking NHS patients, the doc surgery can only do so much, you will have loads of empty properties

My primary concern is how Battle will cope with more traffic. The number of proposed houses (percentage wise) feels disproportionate to the size of the town. I also have concerns about impact on wildlife and what it means for parking in Market Square as the plans here feel vague. School drop off at Battle and Langton already causes problems... if we were a more cycle friendly town it might not be such an issue.

Not enough amenities ie doctors , dentist , schools and everything else people require for a small town.
In area of untouched natural beauty and history.
Which is home to protected wild life ie bats , badgers, newts and all other wild life.
Poor access increasing traffic between schools.

I have lived here 53 years and am so unhappy that I’m even having to send this email.
Our town can not with stand this extra development.
We don’t have enough amenities to support more people let alone the ones that are here fighting for a calm beautiful town.
Schools and amenities are at full capacity already with no room to accommodate more families or traffic.
The ancient woodlands behind my house are natural habitat to wide variety of wild life including bats and badgers .

I oppose the proposed development at BT7, but in truth any large further development in Battle would be terrible for the town.
Anyone who lives here knows the town has terrible traffic and pollution. There is only one main through road. The volume of car traffic on North Trade Road and down the High Street is already considerable and makes walking or driving in the town unpleasant.
In particular BT7 will be horrible for traffic as it is already impossible to get up and down tollgates road due to traffic from the existing estates and Claverham College. It is essentially a one lane road due to parked cars and it is terrible to pass. It is not a viable route for traffic for the new estate.
In addition, the footpath and AONB will be ruined by this development. Biodiversity is important. Please do not destroy this large patch of countryside.

BT1: Lack of supporting infrastructure - Pedestrian access on Battle Hill to the station and town centre is restricted to one narrow pathway, increasing road safety concerns with proposed population increase accessing schools at the other end of Battle and town centre. Increased road safety concerns on entrances/ exits to 3 proposed new housing sites on Hastings road in addition to Blackfriars currently in development. Overall road infrastructure in Battle High street and Lower Lake would not support increase in traffic particularly near historic monuments. Local resevoir capacity does not support current population. Current school and GP surgery capacity in Battle would not accomodate increased population proposed. Entrance to Glengorse is one lane traffic, would not support increase in traffic and would impede access to Glengorse estate and ISP school with disruption to vulnerable students at ISP. Surrounding priority habitats, ancient woodland at risk. Increased flooding risk to surrounding areas.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation in Policy BT7 for a residential development
1. I am very concerned about the impact on the beautiful Ancient Woodland and loss of the greenfield land within the HWNL .
2. Battle is known worldwide for its Abbey, and the history attached to this beautiful building. To develop the land around this setting would undoubtedly detract from the main attraction in our lovely village
3. Traffic using North Trade Road is already causing delays , most notably around school arrival and departure times . In addition many students walk to and from school and there must certainly be concerns for their safety around the entry road to the proposed development

I respectfully request that Policy BT7 be removed from the next iteration of the Draft Local Plan

Yours faithfully

Valerie Moakes
Timberlea
75a Asten Fields
Battle
TN33 0HR