bt2 is a field adjacent & connected to protected woodland and build ign a large housing lot on this would have detrimental effect to the wildlife & woodland. this particular area of land and road floods and is often closed by the police as it is impassable, it was closed in feb this year. the built area would be so far on the outskirts of battle with no access to schools doctors etc. that it would place further strain on hastings schools and infrastructure, you have agreed to build on this land on the basis that hasting's council build on protected woodland. the consequences of building on this land which absorbs rain water would lead to increased flooding in the surrounding arears.

My representation relates to BT7, my main concerns are the huge impact this development would have regarding additional traffic exiting Tollgates and using the North Trade Road. This junction currently already has a safety issue regarding the drop off and collection of school children for Claverham, Tollgates is used as a turning point at these times and becomes gridlocked. There has been a number of near misses regarding school children crossing Tollgates and the additional traffic at these times, therefore the additional traffic resulting from this development will only increase the possibility of an accident. The additional traffic exiting Tollgates even outside of school times will of course add to further congestion on North Trade Road, which currently has a huge amount of traffic. I would also like to raise my concerns regarding the additional pressure this development will add to the towns infrastructure, particularly GP surgeries, schools, local services.

This historic green land is used for farming, this ruin livelihoods of local farmers. This will add to the already great amount of traffic along NorthTradeRoad. The road is suffering from potholes that are growing under the pressure of the existing traffic. This will also effect the carbon emissions rates as there will be more cars and less greenland to soak up the large amounts of CO2 being produced here. Causing medical complications among residents due to poor air quality. Our NHS is overflowing with people and cannot support existing locals in need of care, so will be unable to cope with the additional people moving into new houses- creating serious issues where people will be unable to receive desperate care. Schools will suffer being at capacity, creating risks for the children’s safety. Supposedly there is only a guarantee for 30% of these proposed houses to have water supply.

B T1
This is on a GREENFIELD site, with planning for a concentration of 220 or 250 dwellings plus a possible community building. Vehicles from all these houses will have to access the A2100 Hastings Road at an already dangerously congested area.
The increase in traffic will have a damaging impact on the condition of Hastings Road, which already suffers from numerous pot-holes.
Further, adding families from all the extra housing will massively overload the infrastructure. DOCTORS, DENTISTS, NURSERIES AND SCHOOLS are already overstretched.
The environment will suffer from potential flooding as natural drainage will be lost due to the concentration of housing and roadways, and that flooding will impact on the surrounding natural habitat in the area.
The installation of a cycle route along Hastings Road would be the safest option for the extra cyclists generated by this development.

BT8
This is on a GREENFIELD site, within the High Weald National Landscape. The supporting text already notes that “development of the site will impact on High Weald character features.”
The existing lane is unadopted. No mention has been made of responsibility for maintaining the road surface.
Development on this site requires new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from/to Hastings Road. No mention has been made of the necessary pavements, street lighting and drainage required.
The junction of the lane with the A2100 Hastings Road is already dangerous, being on a blind bend where accidents have occurred in the past. Extra vehicles at this junction would be extremely hazardous.
The junction suffers from a problem with underground water rising at this point which requires constant repairs to the inevitable potholes. Extra traffic will exacerbate this problem.
The possible inclusion of “live-work units” would further increase traffic attending the area.

BT2 - I strongly object to this proposal as essentially this is simply fulfilling the needs of Hastings Borough Council and their Draft Plan. The access shown in the plant from Breadsell Lane onto the A2100 will be dangerous as this road is busy, and often with speeding vehicles. The loss of prime agricultural land, together with loss of woodland, being a habitat for endangered/protected species is unacceptable and unnecessary. There is a clear link to the Hastings Borough Council plan for 500+ houses abutting this land, again with destruction of ancient woodland, agricultural land, and loss of habitat for wildlife. There is no provision for services such as doctors, schools, shops, pubic transport, etc. shown in the plan. The increase in traffic will cause environmental issues as well. The Plan is unacceptable and ill-conceived.

An absolute disgrace that you would build on such beautiful land and woodland. You are slowly destroying everything natural around us. We spend our summers in these wood spending quality family time, getting out teaching our children about nature, walking with our dogs. This land and woods have protected flowers, trees and wildlife living/growing in. Getting my children out into wild is something I’ve always been proud of, never mind the fact that it doesn’t cost anything. Can you also please tell me how you are supporting the infrastructure on where all these households are going to school, drs, dentists even vets. Are all the utilities going to be supported effectively. The extra traffic upon Hastings Road and two estates these woods/fields back onto will be unmanageable (like the current infrastructure, this is already bursting). You cannot keep finding pockets of land and building on it, something has to give.

BT10
This is on a GREENFIELD site within the High Weald National Landscape. The supporting text notes that this development will impact on High Weald character features, in particular an historic fieldscape.
New vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from/to Hastings Road would need to be provided.
Environmental constraints affecting the site include an area of designated ancient woodland and priority habitat adjacent to the southern boundary and areas at risk of surface water flooding. Any development adjacent to such important areas will necessarily have an adverse effect.
Provision must be made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), on the southern boundary, between the edge of development and the ancient woodland.
The installation of a cycle route along Hastings Road would be the safest option for the extra cyclists generated by this development.

I object to the proposed planning in BT1 and BT11

I object to the proposed allocation of this greenfield site for housing - BT2.

The land forms part of an important countryside gap between Battle, Crowhurst and Hastings, helping maintain their separate identities. Development here would erode this and harm the rural character.

The site is environmentally sensitive, adjacent to ancient woodland and close to Marline Valley Woods SSSI. Ancient woodland is irreplaceable, and even with a buffer, development can cause indirect harm through changes in drainage, light, noise and increased human activity. Previous assessments have already raised concerns about impacts on the SSSI.

It is also an unsustainable location, with poor pedestrian infrastructure and reliance on the A2100.

The proposal depends on a wider scheme that may not come forward.

For these reasons, I strongly object.

The objection I am lodging is regarding BT2 and I know there are protected species of flowers and animals/insects in that particular area. I lodged an objection earlier but didn’t state area BT2 which I am now doubling down on as an area that should be left well alone. The wildlife and environmental damage if destroyed would be catastrophic

No mention of aiding the infrastructures - I live here and still have to take my children to Bexhill for school and nursery due to being oversubscribed in Battle. My gp is also in Bexhill as I get an appointment there.
There are badgers and other wildlife within the proposed area.
Ancient woodland should remain in a natural setting.
Tourism supports our town massively - when people visit to view the battlefield the outlook will be new builds, not acceptable. This will impact returning tourism which keeps our highstreet alive.
Flood risks.
Additional traffic in an already strained area at busy times.
Asten fields is supposed to have fields as an outlook. The disruption to that would be heartbreaking for so many families.
The building disruption will cause noise pollution, additional hgv traffic which increases risk to pedestrians especially our children and vulnerable people when walking around the local area.

I am concerned about the proposals for the larger developments, namely BT1, BT2 and BT7. Together these amount to approx 450 dwellings and would mean a significant increase to the town's population. There simply isn't the infrastructure or services to support such an increase in Battle, especially considering traffic congestion through the town, school places and healthcare provision - which are already stretched.

BT7 in particular would cause a significant increase to congestion around Tollgates and North Trade road. Given that the town has already seen significant recent developments in this area, any more will overwhelm existing infrastructure.

We are running the risk of ruining the character of Battle if more large scale housing developments are permitted. There isn't the local need for so many new houses to be built so quickly, and without provision to first of all improve essential services.

Regarding all proposed sites around Battle and Catsfield, bur specifically BT1, BT8 and BT10. While I am not against growth and controlled expansion, the infrastructure is already failing to cope. The schools and doctors are over subscribed. We have had issues with water supply, electricity blackouts and the sewage works are under pressure. The roads in the area are littered with potholes and are generally in poor repair. The large Blackfrairs development is not yet online and will soon add a additional burden to the traffic and road chaos. Battle High Street is a well known pintch point in terms of traffic flow. A number of rural routes converge on either end of this high street and even a single truck making a delivery at the wrong time can have traffic backed up for miles. All these new developments push the infrastructure beyong breaking point. STOP and think about it!

Site BT4
I'm the owner. The map shows c.5 units, but it was 5-9 in the earlier study. The site is 0.47h, so the density might be c.20. I think 5 can go in the site to the south with little impact, now there is greater need. This site is deemed ok, but my other field north of Caldbec House is less visible and more suitable for development 6. I am now the owner of Dodo House, contiguous, also suitable for some development, 5, and wish to offer it as a site.

BT4. I couldn't edit my comment, just submitted, but my main comment is all the other Battle sites will be adding traffic to the clogged High Street, mine is the only one which does not do so, having Virgin's Lane and Whatlington Road as alternate routes, and A2100 and A21. As I am now the owner of Dodo House 6 acres, as well as Caldbec House 5+ acres, and Hughs' Field 2 acres and we have owned here for 100+ years, I'm not flipping for profit. I have been developing here since 1995 and haven't sold anything, and rent out what I have built, short and long term.

BT1, BT2, BT7, BT10, BT11. The planned development appears to have been suggested with little consideration for infrastructure.
It turns Battle into a dormitory town witht the station being the main attraction. Where are the plans for new Doctors surgeries, upgrades to the existing roads. Serious employment opportunities do not exist. Some consideration has been given to the protection of nature but not enough. Many of the sites are greenfield, judging by the disasterous Blackfriars development promises to protect and enhance wildlife habitat will not be houroured. The traffic in Battle is already heavy adding this amount of houses/cars will make living here very unpleasant with air pollution being a problem. People need well designed open spaces. BT7 is utterly unsuitable and removes a necessary car park. Parking and Toilet fascilities are already stressed. This plan risks the tourism attraction of Battle.

I strongly object to the proposed use of land in BT7 for new housing.
With regards to the land itself, this is untouched pasture greenfield and a valuable resource, which runs bedside an area of ancient woodland that I have been visiting for over 40 years. This woodland is delicate and just the increased foot traffic during and following COVID has damaged woodland flower cover, collapsed footpaths and disturbed habitats, so building houses right on its edge would not only bring too many new people to further destroy it, but also lead to environmental disturbance in a huge scale. I have watched foxes in those fields, seen orchids in the woods that are in danger from current visitor numbers. I suspect there may be dormice in less disturbed areas of the wood, which are highly endangered at this time.
The site is also very close to the Abbey fields and building on there will detract from the historic surroundings and add noise pollution to what is a peaceful and wildlife rich area. The amount of damage done would be horrendous.
I also object on the grounds that the houses being built in battle are the wrong sort. We do not need any more large 3 and 4 bed places. We need one beds and flats for locals who can't afford to live locally! We need vacant buildings brought into the market. We need brownfield sites to be reused. We also do not have the infrastructure in place to support a large number of new homes, with doctors surgeries already under pressure, small schools, busy roads (especially at school times) and the high street suffering from the amount of traffic already there.

As a resident of Marley Lane, the Battle development proposal BT9 is a wholly unsuitable site. It will virtually double the size of the existing housing estate to the north of Marley Lane. The road infrastructure is already stretched as well as general lack of schools and medical facilities in the area.

BT7 . I live in Claverham Way off Tollgates. We already have 63 extra houses behind me and Tollgates gets very congested especially at school times. The idea of more vehicles coming through this very narrow road to access a new development is absolutely ridiculous. There are too many houses proposed for Battle. We do not have the infrastructure to support this. I struggle to get a doctor’s appointment as do others and what about schools? The High Street is congested most of the time with people parking in places they shouldn’t. More houses in Market Square is just ruining the character of Battle. Goodness know what tourists think when they visit the Abbey as it is now with the traffic and shops.

I refer to site BT7 - 80 houses in an already congested area is absolutely ludicrous.
As you state this is an area that hosts woodland within the high weal and will have detrimental affect on wildlife, along with the affects of loss of nature on health and well-being and of course potential flooding with lack of green space and engineered paving that will not cope with the new infrastructure.

A small through road such as Tollgates is already busy and this will cause chaos to those living there and the disruption to commuters along those trying to reach Claverham.

How are you supporting schools, GP surgeries, dentists etc in an already over populated area.

Why is Battle being over run with new housing - you are bringing more in from London and the likes with Battle losing its identity as local town. Stop now its not needed.

Policy reference BT2
My objections are,
Impact of extra traffic and road safety especially for school children crossing the road from the bus stop
Impact on wild life and habitat
Strain on infrastructure
Ruination of a beautiful ancient wood which is so popular for people living in the area providing a play area, exercise and well being.

With regards to area BT10, a previous 1971 planning application refusal stated " the proposal would create a hazard to the safety and free flow of traffic using this highway " referring to the A2100 Hastings Road. 56 years later the amount of traffic has already seen a huge increase in traffic and I believe the road is already at maximum capacity at peak times and it would be dangerous to allow further development. The refusal also stated " development would be detrimental to the rural characteristics of this attractive area well outside the reasonable limits of Battle " and I strongly agree with these comments and think that out towns and villages must retain these open areas in AONB

Historical and natural biodiversity severely impacted. Lack of fully working infrastructure in place to support the suggested amount of housing. Breaking/ twisting the law by building to this extent in a protected area. Pollution impact. Lack of facilities.

BT1 BT2. BT7 Historical and natural biodiversity severely impacted. Lack of fully working infrastructure in place to support the suggested amount of housing. Breaking/ twisting the law by building to this extent in a protected area. Pollution impact. Lack of facilities.

I am objecting to the proposed building of houses on BT2. Firstly my concern is for the wildlife. There are deer in the fields and wooded areas around and including this site. There is also a nesting pair of eagle type bird and so many other wonderful species that this proposed site would destroy. I feel that the two estates at the top of the Battle Road is enough for the area. Traffic is bad and to add even more cars to the area and have an additional junction along the Hastings Road would be detrimental to the area.

The vast majority of these sites are greenfield.
Taken altogether, the town of Battle would be overwhelmed by construction and building for years and ultimately, it will be much less rural and more of an urban setting. The existing bus service is inadequate to support the existing never mind a greater population so being near a bus stop or increasing the number of them will not suffice. Many of the existing roads are poorly maintained so scarce resources need to be spent on improving them rather than building new ones.
What impact will the BT11 proposal have on Battle and Langton school? It will certainly have a huge impact on accessibilty to the town and its amenities for years.

I have four reasons for my objection: 1. The overall traffic in Battle on North Trade Road and High Street is already very congested at peaks times, with associated air pollution
2. The access for the proposed development BT7 on Tollgates is currently extremely congested due to Claverham school and the existing estates.
3. Existing services, such as water and waste water, are already stretched in the area. Furthermore, the area has small streams/rivers and greater discharge of effluent from sewage treatment works will only degrade the water quality of these watercourses further.
4. The further development of greenfield sites will reduce the biodiversity and degrade the Weald landscape and natural environment

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

Objection to Policy BT7 – Land at Almonry Farm, Battle

I strongly object to the proposed development of 80 dwellings on this greenfield site within the High Weald National Landscape.

This site forms part of a historic landscape of fields, hedgerows and mature trees that contribute to the rural character of Battle. Development at this scale would cause permanent and irreversible harm that cannot be adequately mitigated.

The proximity to ancient woodland and priority habitats is particularly concerning. A 15-metre buffer is unlikely to protect these sensitive environments from disturbance, light pollution and domestic impacts, risking biodiversity loss.

The development would also harm the setting of important heritage assets, including the Battle of Hastings battlefield, Lower Almonry Farmhouse (Grade II listed), and views from Battle Abbey.

There are further concerns regarding flood risk and increased traffic.

This proposal represents the unnecessary loss of valuable greenfield land and should be refused.