I strongly oppose the proposal to build houses on the fields surrounding our village. These fields are working farmland, used for cows and other livestock, and they play an important role in supporting local farming and food production. Once agricultural land is built on, it is lost forever, which harms both the rural character of the area and the livelihoods of farmers who depend on it.
Etchingham also lacks basic infrastructure to support a large increase in housing. There are no local shops, limited services, and already stretched transport links. Building new homes without first providing essential amenities will put pressure on existing residents and make daily life harder for everyone.
Development should focus on suitable locations with proper infrastructure in place, not on productive farmland that defines the countryside. Protecting these fields helps preserve the environment, local economy, and the character of our community for future generations.

Primary care infrastructure must be expanded and modernised to support the level of housing and population growth proposed across Rother, particularly in Bexhill and Battle, where existing capacity and premises constraints are already evident. It is essential that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan supports the delivery of new or replacement primary care facilities designed to meet BREEAM Excellent standards, ensuring high levels of environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, and long-term operational resilience. Delivering BREEAM Excellent healthcare premises aligns with national planning policy, NHS net zero commitments, and the Local Plan’s sustainability objectives. Modern, fit-for-purpose premises will improve patient access, support workforce retention, and reduce operational costs over time. Developer contributions and infrastructure funding mechanisms must be used to support the timely delivery of these facilities alongside housing growth. This will ensure that primary care provision remains accessible, sustainable, and capable of meeting the needs of both existing and future residents.

i HAVE TO SAY THAT I OBJECT TO THE PLANS FOR THE BREDE AREA, THERE ARE NO FACILITIES TO SUPPORT ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. WE HAVE ONE DOCTOR AND ONE SMALL SHOP, HOW IS THAT GOING TO SUSTAIN ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. THE BUS SERVICE IS A JOKE, ONE BUS EVERY 2 HOURS. THE PEOPLE PROPOSING THESE DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD COME AND SEE BEFORE IMPOSING SUCH ILL THOUGHT OUT PROPOSALS.

The proposed plan seems ill-conceived with no realistic consideration for current infrastructure issues such as traffic and flood plain.

BX31 BX32 BX33 as per the map provided for commentary. These space's are shown as white, which may be misleading as a green space with a very rich habitat. I witness Hawfinches, Bats, Foxes, bird of prey, frogs and toads, unusual insects, Butterflies, hedgegrow birds and geese using the flight path every year return to the thick sheltered hedgegrows and surrounding fields. The loss of diversity from building on this land and each house producing over 50 tonnes of CO2 to be built will not in anyone's lifetime be redeemed by planting some trees and having electric vehicle points and will be a devastating loss. Residents on the edge of town live with the intention of countryside life. These proposed builds would be invasive in every sense, noise, reduction in air quality, overloaded vehicles on country lanes and loss of country views. There are brown belts and airbnbs available.

Objection to Proposed Allocation Policy across all proposed sites within the Battle area – BT1, BT8, BT10 (Land south of Hastings Road, Battle) Draft Rother Local Plan (2025-2042)

We are writing to formally submit our objection to the proposed allocations of site BT1 and all 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.

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 (Marylands) 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 (Marylands) 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.

I have two main concerns. I've lived in Battle for 13 years and in that time I have noticed a huge increase in traffic. Adding more homes will only make that worse. In addition if one thing happens on the roads (temporary traffic lights, works, breakdowns, deliveries, bin day, road closures) Battle practically comes to a standstill. I dont believe the roads or area can cope with any more traffic. Already now if I can I avoid rush hour and school runs. Not to mention the obscene amount of potholes which increased traffic will make worse. Also in that time (and the main concern for me) I have gone from getting a GP appointment within 2/3 days to 3 weeks if youre lucky. If no further surgeries are added then that will increase yet again. The danger of that is people will stop bothering to make appointments (as I have myself left things). This will in no doubt be dangerous in some instances. It also causes extra stress and anger which really should be avoidable. The systems in this area cannot cope already and youre just constantly adding to it. I may be wrong but according to the plans these are proposals to be put in place yet I'm sure some of the building is already taking place so I dont see how people can oppose that now.

I am writing to object to the proposal within the Draft Rother Local Plan to redevelop Eversley Road Car Park in Bexhill for residential housing.

This car park provides important parking for people visiting the town centre as well as those attending community activities in the area. Removing a large proportion of these parking spaces would place additional pressure on nearby streets, which already experience congestion and limited parking availability.

My daughter attends the local Beaver group in the area, and the car park is important for parents and volunteers who need safe and practical places to park when dropping off and collecting children. Evening activities already create pressure on parking, and removing this car park could make access much more difficult and potentially unsafe due to increased traffic and limited spaces nearby.

Groups such as Beavers, Cubs and Scouts are vital for the local community and provide valuable opportunities for children to develop confidence, teamwork and life skills. Planning decisions should consider the wider impact on community groups and ensure that developments do not negatively affect their ability to operate safely and accessibly.

I am also concerned that the loss of this car park will increase parking on surrounding residential roads and force more vehicles to circulate around the town centre searching for spaces, adding to congestion and reducing road safety.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the council to reconsider the allocation of Eversley Road Car Park for residential development and to retain this important parking provision for residents, visitors, and community groups.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

The local infrastructure would be severely negatively impacted by the amount of houses proposed. The high street is struggling to cope with the traffic. There are queues to the schools in the mornings. These extra houses would require an extra school, doctors, dentist and more services. Battle is a historic town and needs to be preserved as so. The surrounding countryside and wildlife habitats must be protected and not harmed as these proposals suggest.

This is an area of beauty and used to protect Battle against flooding.

With a growing mental health crisis, why are we eliminating the best medication - free access to enjoy the local area we choose and pay to live in. Fresh air, no traffic, grazing land for animals etc

The town is plagued by bad roads, oversubscribed school, dentists and doctor surgeries. Funding and development needs to be spent improving what we already have and not creating more pressure on already struggling infrastructure.

Battle is beautiful, let’s keep it that way!!!

The policy completely ignores the wishes of the villagers to maintain exactly that a VILLAGE and not a small town like Rye. The bus service is being cut and the school, is small, The utilities are inadequate and there are traffic issues and the proposals are inadequate. There are a lot of unsustainable suggestions based on a paper exercise with government pressure which has ttaken no account what residents want. Just having Jempsons doesn’t mean Peasmarsh is capable of being transformed into a town. People live there because of the size and nature of the locality. If they wanted the level of development suggested they would move to a rye or Hastings. The plan is flawed.

I was born in Sidley in 1947,the car park has always been used by residents and shoppers, I was told it was left for residents, the council took it on its self to make it into a car park and maintain it, they did not purchase it as far as I know, so it must still be a public space and not the councils to claim it, the car park is vital for the local businesses to survive and for shoppers to park safely, also it is a drop off point for parents to safely drop off and collect the children from Sidley school,

NR2.
My reasons for objecting to this site for houses.
It is outside the village boundary in farmland so would extend the village. We need to preserve the open countryside between Northiam and Newenden for future generations.
Northiam has been the subject of many new houses over the last 10 or so years and the infrastructure has not altered.
The GP surgery is unable to accept new patients also the Dentist and the Veterinary practice due to their books being completely full.

Dear Sirs,

I am only objecting to part of the Hurst Green plan/.I fully support
the existing plan for HG1, HG2, and HG3 and HG5 but not HG4.I believe that HG4 would be too many houses for such a small village.

East Sussex is home to the greatest expanse of mixed broadleaf woodlands in Britain and I firmly believe that a fine balance should be
maintained to preserve the rural nature of the Weald so we can preserve the wonderful habitat for future generations.I think that
overdevelopment would only bring further development.But I think that the existing approved houses are just the right number of houses
both from a practical point of view (pressure on services) and to conserve the East Sussex legacy.Hurst Green is a very important
village in that it connects one of the greatest areas of outstanding natural beauty in East Sussex with rural west Kent.

I strongly object to all the new proposed development in Beckley . Because ....
The infrastructure will not support all the new dwellings
Namely not enough Water even now
Sewage disposal
Electric supply
Infrastructure schools ,Doctors shops are full .
Beckley is a small village all these new houses will destroy for ever this intimate village .
The roads are falling to bits now all the extra traffic will make them into unmentained tracks.
Please do not destroy this village

Pollution: Increased traffic - there is already 16,000+ vehicles travelling down the A21 daily and with the traffic light scheme at Hurst Green there will be more pollution from stop start traffic. The transport links are insufficient - only hourly to London and hardy any local buses around our area in Hurst Green.

The habitat of wildlife HG3 and HG4 in particular will be lost and will harm the High Weald National Landscape.

There are no facilities within the village, only one shop with little parking - as now there is to be double line parking.

The heritage of the village with its listed buildings will become a modern setting.

Increased pollution - 16,000+ vehicles travelling down the A21 daily and pollution from stop start traffic due to new Traffic Lights in village. Hardly any buses insufficient and trains only hourly.

Loss habitat of wildlife - HG3 and HG4.

Harm the High Weald National Landscape.

There are little facilities within the village

The heritage of the village will be flooded with new builds - there are many historical properties.

There is hardly any employment in village.

Object on Grounds of Air Quality - Pollution - A21 extremely congested.

Harm to habitats and protected landscape of the High Weald.

Pressure on services and community facilities - very little already.

Heritage - harm to setting on many historical properties.

Poorly located sites in particular HG3 and HG4.

There is little employment in the area and economy is faltering - no funds to even fill potholes.

I strongly disagree with the suitability of the sites allocated to Playden Parish, they are accessed onto narrow single lanes with few passing places and already burdened with traffic, there are no pavements or provisions for able bodied pedestrians , let alone disabled or children in pushchairs..

The infrastructure in Battle is dated and stretched. The amount of homes planned is ridiculous. And rother hardly have the best track record on suitable planning decisions.

The latest plans to develop in the highlighted areas in battle will significantly add traffic and persons to the already struggling infrastructure.
Living just off North Trade Road, the volume of traffic already on that road going in and out of battle is already heavy meaning questions of traffic to get on to the road, generally 15-20 minutes to get to and through the high street and school buses struggling on Battle Hill to get into town. Any more more would be carnage for the town and the road conditions, let alone losing our beautiful countryside.
There has already been a number of new builds in the last number of years with no extra facilities (schools, doctors or parking) in/near town. Theres a new build estate just past claverham that has been going on for years and not even finished.
Protect our green spaces before its too late

The infrastructure does not support the building of these new houses. Battle is already a complete nightmare for traffic, the roads are not safe as they are. The schools and GP surgeries do not have the capacity to support more housing

These will not be affordable houses for local families to continue living within the area.
Roads, water, sewerage, Energy, Doctors, Dentists are all suffering now with the population the town has.
More people and cars will not improve Battle to a position it once was. A busy bustling town with Banks and rows of popular shops.

Battle is a historic town, with ancient buildings and beautiful landscapes. Destroying areas of natural beauty will change the fundamental identity of the town beyond repair, not to mention affect the wildlife we’re so lucky to have living here.
Areas particularly along Hastings Road are already at flood risk, as identified by the council themselves, so replacing natural paddocks and fields with concrete is going to put properties below at risk of flooding. Endangered and at risk flowers and wildlife inhabit these areas and they should be protected
Infrastructure is already at breaking point, and we haven’t even factored in the hundreds of people who will soon move into the Blackfriars development. The high street and surrounding roads already struggle with chaotic traffic particularly articulated HGVs, and there is no contingency plan for how even more houses will not be more detrimental to our town. Local people will be more open to the Local Plan if there was already plans in place to combat the lack of availability and space in local schools, dentists and doctors surgeries. Unfortunately there is no mention of this being sorted any time soon.

These proposals completely fail to respect the unique character of Battle and the existing pressure on our roads and local services. As usual there is absolutely no concrete strategy to cater for the proposed influx of residents.

RE: Proposed Housing at Almonry Farm (BT7)

Impact on Privacy and Ground Conditions
My property overlooks the BT7 site during the winter months when tree cover is reduced, and development would significantly compromise our privacy. The land is also prone to waterlogging during winter. We have experienced instability in parts of our garden near the boundary with Mansers Shaw, and it is reasonable to expect similar ground conditions across this site, given its comparable incline. This raises serious concerns about the suitability of the land for development.

Road Infrastructure and Traffic
The condition of nearby roads is already poor, with clear examples at Asten Fields and the upper section of Netherfield Hill. If the existing road network cannot be adequately maintained at present, it is difficult to see how it could support increased use. Congestion is already a significant issue, particularly during peak times in central Battle, and is compounded by insufficient parking for existing residents. Parking at the recreation ground is frequently at capacity, and access is often hindered by on-street parking. Additional housing would inevitably exacerbate these pressures.

Strain on Local Services
Local infrastructure is already under considerable strain. Schools are oversubscribed, and access to GP appointments is increasingly limited. Further development would place unsustainable pressure on these essential services.

Lack of Community Infrastructure
Provision for local families, particularly children and young people, is currently inadequate. There is no youth club or swimming pool, and the children’s centre serving Battle and Langton has been closed for many years. Battle Memorial Hall requires significant investment to function effectively as a modern community hub. The town is also, once again, without a functioning cash machine. These are fundamental provisions that should be addressed before any expansion is considered.

Impact on Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity
The site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is a peaceful, picturesque field that contributes significantly to the character of the area. Its rural setting, seasonal grazing, and proximity to the historic Abbey, battlefield and Mansers Shaw would be fundamentally harmed by development. The area supports a range of wildlife, including badgers, newts, hedgehogs and bats; development would result in habitat loss and long-term environmental harm.

I strongly object to more and more housing taking the place of our green areas, and many others we've spoken to are massively opposed to it. This is only a very small area of the country, it's a terrible plan.

I strongly oppose the allocation of FW1, beyond the 9 houses per the TNP with highways access via demolition of Wardsdown House, as it is an unsustainable, mitigation-dependent site that conflicts with the Local Plan strategy, harms the High Weald National Landscape, and would increase car dependency.

I oppose FW2 as currently proposed. The 114 dwellings scale is excessive, inappropriate density for Flimwell, lead to highway safety concerns on the A268, and insufficient provision for amenity space.

I am particularly concerned about FW2 north side of A268 which is highly visually intrusive, visible over long distances, harming the AONB, inevitable loss of dark skies, and increased noise and light pollution. FW2b is especially unsuitable given its distance from the settlement and a previous refusal in 2013 on similar grounds.

However, I would consider limited, low-density development at FW2 if it fully addresses landscape, safety, and amenity concerns.”

I strongly object to more and more housing taking the place of our green areas, and many others we've spoken to are massively opposed to it. This is only a very small area of the country, it's a terrible plan.