Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

In general Battle Town Council supports the strategic objectives with reservations regarding the Hastings Fringes as these appear to encroach on the current strategic gaps.
With reference to densities, the selection option B has pushed the density level higher than the previous standard

With a high number of developments proposed for Hastings Road this will further increase congested traffic with very little protected pedestrian footways.
Once the Tapestry development is completed there will also be additional traffic onto the A2100, Hastings Road.
To reduce the reliance on individual transportation the public transport network should be increased.
Management of timing of developments should be considered to ensure there is time between developments to reduce the negative impact of traffic and construction noise, emissions and other disruptions.
Consideration must be given to the impact of increased population on emergency services and health provision.
A better process for working with the NHS and other local authority provisions should be mandatory

The existing strategic gaps must be retained to prevent the coalescence of Hastings and Battle and retain the historic entity of Battle.
Proposed development sites should be shaped to be within the current development boundaries

Battle Town Council has reservations to the higher density levels quoted and would prefer to see the average as the maximum.

Battle Town Council has a number of concerns, which are not addressable within the 150 words permitted on this consultation, and will make a separate representation with regard to the individual proposed sites.

Battle Town Council has a number of temporary sites already in place and have concerns regarding the further development of these sites, subject to conditions already in place.

Council supports the policy

Please refer to separate submission regarding development sites proposed for Battle wards

BT1 - Land south of Hastings Road, Battle OBJECT
A very large development contributing to an urban environment rather than the rural aspect of Battle.
The Battle Neighbourhood Plan included a total of 15 dwellings on this site, which have not been developed yet.
Egress from this large site onto the A2100 will be compromised when the final Blackfriars Road onto the A2100 is made. Increased traffic congestion will create high pollution levels that are likely to affect residents and drivers when queueing to get into Battle. The access into and out of the two sites either side of Glengorse will be difficult for both existing and future residents.
With increased population to the south/east of the town, and schools being at the centre and north/west of the town, there is more need than ever to complete the shared-use walking and cycling route as detailed in the Battle LCWIP section of the 2018 East Sussex Cycling and Walking Strategy. The proposed route is a part of the 2021 Battle Neighbourhood Plan.
As for the two areas which make up BT1, they must have a pedestrian link between them.

BT2 - Land at Breadsell, Battle OBJECT
The A2100 at this point, due to its uncluttered edges (fields and hedges to the south, attractive sandstone wall and trees to the north) and distant views to the coast, clearly separates Battle from Hastings, and should remain a strategic gap. If considered for development, good screening using a variety of native trees should be planted between the site and the A2100. A lower housing density, adjusted in size and shape to maintain the existing development boundaries would also better match the low density to the north and west.

BT3 - Beech Farm, Battle SUPPORT
Whilst Council has no objection in principle, with increasing amounts of employment on the whole of the Beech Farm site, consideration should be given to how people might arrive at the site sustainably, as to with journeys which cross the site from Netherfield Road to North Trade Road. There are public footpaths in the area, however they cater for the casual rambler rather than the commuter. Making the southern access road a permissive path would open up sustainable travel options for more people.

BT4 – Caldbec House. SUPPORT
No objection, the Battle Neighbourhood Plan allocated 5 dwellings for this site, 3 have been developed to date.

BT5 – Rutherford Business Park. SUPPORT
No objection

BT6- North of Sunnyrise OBJECT
This site was previously assessed under the Battle Neighbourhood Plan and was excluded due to the access being in dispute.

BT7 –Almonry Farm OBJECT
This site was assessed within the Battle Neighbourhood Plan and was dismissed as unsuitable. The parameters remain unchanged. The land is unsuitable from an access point of view and has historical limitations as it is close to the battlefield. There is also Ancient Woodland requiring protection.
This site should be used as leverage to push forward the “Battle Schools Greenway” cycling and walking route, as detailed in the Battle LCWIP section of the 2018 East Sussex Cycling and Walking Strategy. The proposed route is a part of the 2021 Battle Neighbourhood Plan. The original Battle LCWIP plans could be utilised by creating a new “crossroads” point on Almonry Farm track where it bridges Asten Fields with Hampden Close, or an alternative route made by upgrading the footpath running adjacent to the north edge of the proposed site.
The Asten Field estate suffers from having more vehicles than there are parking spaces, meaning that residents often park cars on grass areas, across dropped kerbs, and sometimes ON the access path into Battle Health Pathway. Development at BT7 would be a good time to provide a little more parking space which residents of Asten Fields could use, preferably with a few public EV charge points as most houses at Asten Fields are not immediately adjacent to parking spaces (so home charging is difficult, a major barrier to EV adoption).

BT8 –Land at Loose Farm SUPPORT
From the proposal it is unclear where the new access onto the A2100 would be situated as at that point the road is on a bend. Subject to this being confirmed as a safe access there is no objection.

BT9 – Land east of Coronation Gardens OBJECT
As this is in the only permitted Green Gap within Battle, this should be retained with no further development .
Should the site be considered, pedestrian access (or even shared-use access, as the site is adjacent to a bridleway) at the western edge of the site should be incorporated to connect with the wider footpath network and to Coronation Gardens with its recreation facilities and shop.
For sustainable travel into town and to the railway station, a footway should be constructed along Marley Lane, to join this site with the existing footway near Coronation Gardens vehicle entry point.
The speed limit should be reduced to 30mph or lower, as it is currently 60mph.

BT10 - Land adjoining Little Brans, Battle OBJECT
Council considers this to be overdevelopment in an historic fieldscape. There appear to be two access roads, isolating a property between the two, which is unacceptable. Constraints include designated Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitat.
To be considered a “sustainable site” (as per the existing description), speed limits on the A2100 should be lowered for safer cycling into Battle. Alternatively, consider upgrading footways to become shared-use paths between “Bannatyne’s roundabout” and Battle Town. A preferable option would be to create a traffic-free shared-use route 'behind' the houses along Hastings Road, joining up with BT1 and hopefully one day the cross-town LCWIP shared-use route.

BT11 – Market Square OBJECT
It would appear that these apartments would be on top of the existing retail buildings and would be mainly for the elderly. Concerns are that this could be overpowering in terms of bulk.
Future plans should address pavement parking by visitors to the area. Vehicles of all types regularly park either partially or fully on the pavement outside the existing business fronting the High Street.
There appears to be very little parking enforcement in Market Road, customers of the existing businesses, frequently park on yellow lines at the top of the steps adjacent to the library, in preference to using the
car parks.
The RDC comments “Ensure an active frontage is provided along Market Road.” imply that housing may be placed along the edge of Market Road? If so, there should be off-street parking for those buildings, perhaps in a similar way to the ‘parking lot’ and garages at Saxonwood Court (on the north side of Market Road)

SD9 - Land at Felon’s Field, Marley Lane Battle Town Council supports this proposal
Upgrade of the footpath leading from the A2100 / Marley Lane junction through to Sedlescombe, to a surface which is usable all year round, thus connecting the residents of Sedlescombe to the increasingly large Marley Lane industrial parks which provide employment.