Catsfield is a tiny village with a very busy through road, no gas supply, flooding and environmental concerns and strained public services. There is one local shop, one pub and one small primary school. No doctor or dentist.

The through road is very busy with heavy traffic. It is very dangerous to walk children through the village to school, to the recreational ground or the shop. There have already been two fatalities recently along this road.

More housing will bring more young families to an area which cannot safely support them. I fear for the children.

Do you have any comments on the proposed site allocations in Catsfield, detailed in Policies CT1 to CT3?

CT1. This site has had a planning application rejected, 0.8 of 1.66 Hectares for development. 30 dwellings
• Access is close to a zebra crossing and junction with a poor safety record. (for access to 30 dwellings in CT1 and 20 from CT2)
• Infrastructure insufficient with no access to sewers and a water supply not secured.
• Site flood regularly with run off requiring huge rainwater tanks.

Do you have any comments on the proposed site allocations in Catsfield, detailed in Policies CT1 to CT3?

CT2
This a new site, with no access from the highway. It requires CT1 to be built first. 0.6 from 1.23 hectares for development. 20 dwellings.
The proposed access is via narrow public right of way used by walkers, horse riders and some rural residents. This access is unsuitable for a development of 20 houses.
This site should not be included in the plan. It is not deliverable.

CT1 was allocated in the last Local plan, so I have no objection to that particular site, but it is frustrating that this site has not been developed yet. CT2, like CT1 is in the AONB, so the quantity of housing is excessive and therefor a smaller allocation of housing would be preferable for both sites. CT3 is totally unacceptable given that it floods regularly and again the quantity of housing is again unnecessarily high. It is a real shame that those responsible for assessing the sites did not see to allocate smaller sites spread around the village (up to 5 houses) that would have been in keeping with the surrounds. You will create another "Ninfield" with these additional allocations in Catsfield. The infrastructure cannot cope with the current demands, let alone with all these new allocations that you have created in this new Local Plan.

In reference to CT1 I would especially like to raise concerns regarding the impact of building on this site within areas that fall under recent protections of environmental areas of importance that Rother DC have already put in place.

The proposed development in CT1 is a 'major development. As such the proposed local plan confirms (under 6.6) that under NPPF that major developments can only be under exceptional circumstances. Thus development in CTI would be against RDC published proposed policy on this point.

The CT1 plans are within the HWAONL. The HWAONL Management Plan 2024-2029, which is a statutory document, says that for major developments there is a presumption against such development (p69).
CT1 is within Tree Preservation Order TPO434-A1 so, it would be against the whole point of TPOs for such a designated area to be overturned.

It is adjacent to, if not the within, the grounds of Lady Brassey's Arboretum (of Normanhurst) which hitherto has not been recognised on planning maps, for its contribution to its historic landscape of the area.
This finite green space is required for the well-being of the community - well-being currently being promoted under national and local law in the UK.

Therefore CT1 as a protected designated area should never have been considered for the Rother Plan under the NPPF and HWAONL.

Why are 85 dwellings planned for a small historic village, which, by Rother's own assessment is considered as having 'poor sustainability'? The number of proposed dwellings will swamp the existing village with estate-style housing having an urbanising effect, irreversibly changing the character of the village which borders the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL).

This plan contradicts some of the Strategic Spatial Objectives stated in the draft plan. For example, Objective 7 states that growth will be focused in sustainable locations - which is not the case for Catsfield. Objective 8 promotes connectivity of local communities including active travel. The state of the roads (speeding traffic), pavements and verges is poor and it is certainly not safe to cycle to Battle station or the next village. Increasing the population by the proposed amount will only add to the number of vehicles and journeys.

Objective 11 prioritises brownfield land - Catsfield has none, with 2 of the 3 sites being in the High Weald National Landscape.

CT1 is within the High Weald National Landscape, yet does not benefit from the statement afforded to other HWNL sites: 'therefore a sensitive form of development is required in line with Local Plan policies.' It has become an 'overgrown, undeveloped field' due to neglect, but is also a naturally wild area of biodiversity and nature conservation (Objective 2) and should be protected not destroyed.
Catsfield is in a dark sky area, important for wildlife. There are only 8 streetlights in the whole village. How will this be protected within housing estates? The site has a high water table and a winterbourne stream for part of the year. CT3 floods regularly.

How will the setting of the Grade 2 listed buildings adjacent to the proposed access to CT1 be protected? Existing residents bordering CT1 have virtually no protection other than a native species hedge, which will take decades to mature. There should be a buffer zone to protect all existing properties, many of which have been there for decades.

The access for CT1 runs between the two Grade 2 listed properties and onto the busy B2204 (8000+ cars daily) very close to the pedestrian crossing, bus stops and road junctions. Access for CT2 is even worse - traffic crossing the historic 1066 walking path and adding to the volume of traffic exiting onto The Green.

People who have lived in this village for years chose it because of its quiet rural character, which is in danger of being severely compromised by comparatively large housing estates. It is accepted that the village requires some additional housing, including affordable dwellings, but this should be on a smaller scale, for example rural exception sites and infill. There are many properties in the village which have not sold after years of being marketed. There simply is not the demand for large numbers of houses in a village of poor sustainability with little employment and poor public transport. Small rural villages such as Catsfield should be developed sensitively rather than having unwanted and unrealistic housing targets forced onto them because a few landowners have land to sell to the highest bidder. If people wish to live on estates and have good access to infrastructure, employment and facilities, then they choose to live in a town. Rural life is under threat and should be preserved for those who choose this way of life.

Dear Planning Policy Team,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed site allocations CT1, CT2 and CT3 in Catsfield within the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18).

I am currently looking to move to Catsfield and have strong personal connections to the village through close friends who live there, so I spend a fair amount of time in the area.

From experience, it is clear that Catsfield is a small rural village with limited infrastructure. The B2204 is already a fast and challenging road to navigate, and the condition of the roads is poor, with potholes a frequent issue.

At school times in particular, traffic becomes extremely congested, with roads often difficult to pass through and vehicles regularly struggling to pass safely, with damage not uncommon. Local services are minimal, and the primary school is already under pressure. The surrounding fields and farmland are also a key part of what defines the village, both visually and in terms of its rural character.

Against this context, I strongly object to the combined allocation of CT1, CT2 and CT3 for the following reasons:

1. Disproportionate and Unsustainable Scale of Growth
The three sites together deliver approximately 85 dwellings, which represents a significant expansion for a village of this size. This is not incremental growth and would materially alter the scale, function and character of Catsfield.
The Sustainability Appraisal makes clear that cumulative and long-term impacts must be considered. The combined effect of these allocations has not been adequately justified.

2. Loss of Agricultural Land and Impact on Food Production
All three sites are greenfield and form part of the working rural landscape, including fields and paddocks that support agricultural use.
The loss of this land contributes to:
Reduction in domestic food production capacity
Fragmentation of agricultural land
Increased reliance on imported food
At a time where there is growing national focus on food security and sustainable British agriculture, the cumulative loss of farmland across multiple sites is a serious concern and conflicts with sustainable land use principles.

3. Conflict with Environmental and Landscape Objectives
The plan area is largely within the High Weald National Landscape, and the Sustainability Appraisal identifies risks to:
Natural landscapes
Biodiversity
Environmental quality
Allocating multiple greenfield sites in a small rural village directly conflicts with these objectives and results in permanent landscape change that cannot be fully mitigated.

4. Infrastructure Constraints
There is no clear evidence that infrastructure will be delivered to support this level of growth.
In particular:
The primary school is already at capacity
Local services are limited
There is no clear plan for expansion of community infrastructure
The Sustainability Appraisal itself identifies pressure on services and facilities, yet this level of development would significantly increase that pressure.

5. Transport and Highway Safety
The proposed sites raise clear concerns:
CT1: New access onto the B2204, a fast and already challenging road
CT2: Constrained access arrangements and limited vehicular options
CT3: Access via smaller rural roads, with additional flood risk considerations

Across all sites, development would:
Increase traffic volumes
Worsen safety risks
Increase reliance on private vehicles
This conflicts with the plan’s own objective to reduce congestion and car dependency.

6. Environmental and Ecological Impact
Each site presents environmental constraints including:
Mature hedgerows and trees
Watercourses
Proximity to ancient woodland
Flood risk (CT3)
These indicate that the sites are sensitive in environmental terms, and development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation. Mitigation measures cannot fully offset the loss of greenfield land.

7. Harm to Village Character
Catsfield is defined by:
Its rural setting
Low-density development
Surrounding farmland
The cumulative effect of CT1, CT2 and CT3 would:
Extend the built form significantly
Reduce the distinction between village and countryside
Permanently alter the character of the settlement
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I strongly object to the allocation of sites CT1, CT2 and CT3.

These proposals:
Represent disproportionate growth
Result in loss of agricultural land
Exceed infrastructure capacity
Create transport and safety risks
Cause environmental harm
Undermine the character of Catsfield
Request
I respectfully request that the Council:
Removes or significantly reduces allocations CT1, CT2 and CT3, and/or
Reallocates development to more sustainable locations with appropriate infrastructure, and/or
Provides clear and deliverable evidence of infrastructure provision before proceeding

Please see attached response, responding to questions 1 (Strategic Spatial Objectives), 2 (proposed housing target), 12 (Vision and development strategy for Battle and Surrounding Settlements) and 38 (proposed site allocations in Catsfield, specifically Policy CT3).

See attached representations in response to questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 23, 38, 61, and 68

Please see attached submission document, including appendices, in response to questions 12, 38 and 68.