DOCSLIB.ORG

Appeal Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appeal Decision Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 October 2018 by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/W/18/3201084 Netherhay Barn, Whatlington Road, Battle, East Sussex TN33 0NA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs A McFaite against the decision of Rother District Council. The application Ref RR/2018/285/P, dated 15 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 March 2018. The development proposed is described as ‘proposed dwelling to replace redundant barn’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a dwelling to replace a redundant barn at Netherhay Barn, Whatlington Road, Battle, East Sussex TN33 0NA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: RR/2018/285/P, dated 15 January 2018, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decisison. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, with particular reference to policies concerned with housing in rural areas and the accessibility of services and facilities; and The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Reasons Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location 3. Policy OSS3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS) addresses the location of development and states that planning applications should be considered in the context of the spatial strategy for the area. In this instance, the appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary of Battle and is within the countryside for the purposes of applying the policies in the CS. 4. Policy RA3 of the CS states that new housing in the countryside will be allowed in extremely limited circumstances. These include rural workers dwellings, the conversion of traditional rural buildings, replacement dwellings and rural exception sites providing affordable housing. The appeal scheme would not be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084 any of the types of development where the principle is exceptionally permitted in the countryside by Policy RA3. As such, the proposal would not be in a suitable location when applying policies concerned with housing in rural areas. 5. Thus, the proposal would be at odds with, and harmfully undermine, the adopted and evidenced based spatial strategy for rural housing in the development plan and the consistency and relative certainty that should flow from a plan led approach to the location of new development. The accessibility of services and facilities 6. The appeal site is located on the periphery of Battle. The Council suggests it is approximately 1.5 miles away from the town centre. It would be possible for future occupants of the appeal property to walk from the appeal site into the town centre and much of the route would be along a pavement that can be joined at Oakhurst Road. However, given the distance, which would be considerable for a return trip, it is unlikely to be a regular occurrence. Moreover, the first section of the route has no pavement and this may further discourage walking. 7. Cycling into the town centre, or to the rail station, could be an option as the distances travelled would not be too onerous. However, future occupants may not have a sufficient level of confidence, fitness and proficiency for this mode of transport to be relied upon as an alternative to travel by a private motorised vehicle. There is a bus stop located about 600 metres away from the appeal site but I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s evidence that suggests the frequency of the bus service is limited. 8. In light of the foregoing, the appeal site is not well placed, relative to services and facilities, to accommodate a new dwelling. This is because the future occupants would be predisposed to travel by private motorised transport. Such journeys to the facilities in the town would be short in duration but daily vehicle movements would soon add up to a high number of miles travelled with the associated carbon emissions. 9. However, the appeal site is already driven to by the appellants twice a day in order to tend to their horses. The erection of the appeal property would extinguish the need for these trips. I accept that the appellant may not ultimately live in the property but I consider this to be unlikely as it has been designed to meet there needs and to allow them to be close to their horses. As such, the erection of a dwelling would reduce some existing vehicle movements and this would offset some of those that would be come about through the occupation of the proposed dwelling. 10. In conclusion, the appeal site is not well placed for future residents to access everyday services and facilities other than by traveling via private motorised transport. This would harmfully undermine Policy TR3 of CS, which seeks to minimise the need to travel. Nevertheless, the harmful impact is partially off- set by the potential for future occupants to occasionally walk or cycle into the town (or cycle to the rail station) and the proposal would remove some of the daily vehicle movements that already exist. These factors moderately temper the harm that would arise from the conflict with Policy TR3. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084 The impact on the character and appearance of the area 11. The appeal site is located towards the edge of Battle and is accessed from Whatlington Road, which is characterised by loosely arranged and irregularly sited ribbon development. The appeal site is therefore partially viewed as being on the edge of an existing pocket of development, including a large dwelling to its immediate south. 12. There are a number of structures within the appeal site including two modern barns, a stable and riding arena. The buildings are surrounded by hardstanding, vehicles and paraphernalia1 and there is daily activity. As such, the site already has a developed appearance, including a long gravel driveway and formal access off the public highway. Some of these features are common components of a residential development and this would considerably limit any urbanising impacts flowing from the appeal scheme. 13. The proposal is for the erection of a detached dwelling in the location of an existing barn and therefore the proposal would not result in development in a position where there is none currently. There is some low level storage in the barn but it otherwise appears redundant. The proportions of the dwelling would reflect the depth of the existing barn and the width would be slightly greater. The height increase would be moderate because the first floor would be accommodated in the roof. As such, the siting and massing of the proposed dwelling would not be a significant departure from that of the existing barn. This would soften the impact on the wider landscape and minimise the sense that there had been an urbanisation of the site. 14. In addition the appearance of the dwelling would be reminiscent of a traditional barn with a simple rectangular plan, low eaves and double height porch. The barn concept would be undermined to an extent by the presence of a chimney, Juliet balcony, yellow Cedral weatherboarding and dormer window, which are overtly domestic features. But overall the concept would assist in settling the building into the landscape, especially if sensitive and locally appropriate external materials are used. This can be controlled through the imposition of a planning condition. 15. The appeal site is not particularly visible from Whatlington Road or nearby properties due to the distance, topography and intervening landscaping. The proposed dwelling would be more visible from the adjoining public footpath but views of it from this direction would be significantly softened by the presence of the dense hedge along the western boundary of the appeal site, which includes a belt of evergreen planting. 16. Given the existing built character of the appeal site and its environs, the modest scale and massing of the dwelling relative to the existing building, the barn style proposed and the presence of dense boundary landscaping, I do not consider the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area or the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Council has not directed me to any part of the High Weal AONB Management Plan that would suggest otherwise. 17. In conclusion, the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the area and therefore a conflict with Policies OSS4, BA1, RA3 1 Including tools, logs and some building materials https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/U1430/W/18/3201084 and EN1 would not occur. These policies seek to secure development that does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality, the setting of the town and provide stewardship to the distinctive local landscape. Planning Balance 18. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply as required to by the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council have confirmed that the housing supply is 3.44 years, which is low. Thus, Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged as an important material consideration. As I have not identified harm to the AONB landscape, the application of policies in the Framework aimed at protecting them do not provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • World War One: the Deaths of Those Associated with Battle and District
    WORLD WAR ONE: THE DEATHS OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH BATTLE AND DISTRICT This article cannot be more than a simple series of statements, and sometimes speculations, about each member of the forces listed. The Society would very much appreciate having more information, including photographs, particularly from their families. CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 The western front 3 1914 3 1915 8 1916 15 1917 38 1918 59 Post-Armistice 82 Gallipoli and Greece 83 Mesopotamia and the Middle East 85 India 88 Africa 88 At sea 89 In the air 94 Home or unknown theatre 95 Unknown as to identity and place 100 Sources and methodology 101 Appendix: numbers by month and theatre 102 Index 104 INTRODUCTION This article gives as much relevant information as can be found on each man (and one woman) who died in service in the First World War. To go into detail on the various campaigns that led to the deaths would extend an article into a history of the war, and this is avoided here. Here we attempt to identify and to locate the 407 people who died, who are known to have been associated in some way with Battle and its nearby parishes: Ashburnham, Bodiam, Brede, Brightling, Catsfield, Dallington, Ewhurst, Mountfield, Netherfield, Ninfield, Penhurst, Robertsbridge and Salehurst, Sedlescombe, Westfield and Whatlington. Those who died are listed by date of death within each theatre of war. Due note should be taken of the dates of death particularly in the last ten days of March 1918, where several are notional. Home dates may be based on registration data, which means that the year in 1 question may be earlier than that given.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary School Consultation Mountfield and Whatlington East Sussex County Council
    Primary school consultation Mountfield and Whatlington East Sussex County Council Dear Sirs I am ashamed as one of the local Members for the Darwell ward of Rother District Council, that you are contemplating closing down the Mountfield and Whatlington Church of England Primary school. I represent six Parishes and am well aware of the importance of the local schools, churches, doctors village halls and shops in keeping these communities alive. I have often argued, often against popular opinion, of the importance of bringing new housing and new blood into the villages to help preserve them and keep them alive. It amazes me that when each of the villages in this area is going to have to accept more houses, much of it affordable, by Government edict you can contemplate cutting down on one of the mainstays of village life especially without any obvious ability of the larger local schools to accept greater numbers. More houses mean more people, which means more children, which means more school capacity will be needed. All planning should be dictated by the future; we are one of the worst educated countries in Europe and here you are deciding that cramming more pupils from different areas into ever larger classes is the way forward rather than educating those children locally in their own environment where parental influence not only on them but also on the local teachers might be a better option and help the children learn better manners, be better disciplined and have a better chance of future employment through being taught in smaller classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Robertsbridge Community College: September 2020 School Services
    Robertsbridge Community College: September 2020 School Services Please consider alternative ways of getting to and from school, such as walking or cycling, where this is a safe option. If you travel in by car your school might ask you to drop off away from the main entrance to avoid any extra congestion. If you travel in by public bus or school bus, minibus or taxi, these are some important things you need to know: You should wash your hands before and after boarding No standing will be allowed. Please sit with others in your bubble or year group where possible. If you can, please keep your distance between students not in your bubble, as well as other passengers Windows and sunroofs will be kept open where possible to help with ventilation Face coverings are required by law for all pupils aged 11 and over on public transport, in line with government policy. Children aged 11 and over should wear a covering on all school transport if they can, as well as younger children who are able. If a child has a reason which makes them exempt, please let your school know this. We need everyone’s help to make this workable - so please discuss the importance of wearing a face covering together. Fares will continue to be charged on bus services available to students only, except students issued with a free bus pass. Please pay the exact bus fare so as to reduce cash handling. Stagecoach does not provide cash change. Stagecoach now also offers contactless payments by prepaid card, debit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay.
    [Show full text]
  • Roads in the Battle District: an Introduction and an Essay On
    ROADS IN THE BATTLE DISTRICT: AN INTRODUCTION AND AN ESSAY ON TURNPIKES In historic times travel outside one’s own parish was difficult, and yet people did so, moving from place to place in search of work or after marriage. They did so on foot, on horseback or in vehicles drawn by horses, or by water. In some areas, such as almost all of the Battle district, water transport was unavailable. This remained the position until the coming of the railways, which were developed from about 1800, at first very cautiously and in very few districts and then, after proof that steam traction worked well, at an increasing pace. A railway reached the Battle area at the beginning of 1852. Steam and the horse ruled the road shortly before the First World War, when petrol vehicles began to appear; from then on the story was one of increasing road use. In so far as a road differed from a mere track, the first roads were built by the Roman occupiers after 55 AD. In the first place roads were needed for military purposes, to ensure that Roman dominance was unchallenged (as it sometimes was); commercial traffic naturally used them too. A road connected Beauport with Brede bridge and ran further north and east from there, and there may have been a road from Beauport to Pevensey by way of Boreham Street. A Roman road ran from Ore to Westfield and on to Sedlescombe, going north past Cripps Corner. There must have been more. BEFORE THE TURNPIKE It appears that little was done to improve roads for many centuries after the Romans left.
    [Show full text]
  • Heading 1 Text Type
    Rother District Council Report to: Planning Date: 17 December 2020 Title: Appeals Report of: Tim Hickling, Head of Strategy and Planning Ward(s): All Purpose of Report: To update the Planning Committee Officer Recommendation(s): It be RESOLVED: That the report be noted. APPEALS LODGED RR/2020/651/P BATTLE: 74A Hastings Road, Sierra Lodge, Battle (Delegation) Change of Use from a detached garage to a holiday let with one allocated parking space and bin store area. Ms Esther Sefaah RR/2020/396/T BEXHILL: 44 Collington Rise, Oakwood, Bexhill (Delegation) Horse Chestnut - Remove approximately 6ft all round to remove dead branches. Mr Peter Bennett RR/2020/1306/P BEXHILL: 24 Furnells Way, Bexhill (Delegation) Proposed rear conservatory. Mr and Mrs K. Pitt RR/2020/1334/P BEXHILL: 7 Bolebrooke Road, Bexhill (Delegation) Create driveway from existing front garden. Holmes Homes Ltd RR/2020/1022/P GUESTLING: 22 Allards, Guestling (Delegation) Erection of single storey front extension. Mr. Kent Taylor RR/2020/781/P GUESTLING: West View, Rock Lane, Three Oaks, Guestling (Delegation) Outline: Erection of new single family dwelling. Mr B. Al-Khalifa RR/2019/1901/P PEASMARSH: 1 Main Street, Brickfield, Peasmarsh (Delegation) Proposed extension to form self-contained dwelling. Mr Peter Bedborough RR/2020/1406/P PEASMARSH: Lyndhurst, Main Street, Peasmarsh pl201217 – Appeals (Delegation) Variation of Conditions 6 and 7 imposed on RR/2017/1843/P to allow the annexe to be used by friends and family members not living in the main residence, as allowed by planning appeal APP/U1430/A/09/2100179. Mr Terence Denman RR/2020/170/O TICEHURST: Cairds Camping & Caravan Site, (Delegation) Battenhurst Road, Ticehurst Lawful Development Certificate for existing use of land for the stationing of a residential caravan.
    [Show full text]
  • Stagecoach Bus Timetable Extract
    East Sussex bus times page 1 of 3 Hastings ● St. Leonards ● Battle ● Hawkhurst 304 305 Hawkhurst ● Wadhurst ● Frant ● Tunbridge Wells 254 MONDAYS TO SATURDAYS except Bank Holidays easyAACCESSCCESS buses route number 254 254 305 254 254 384 304 304 305 304 305 304 305 304 304 304 305 304 305 NS Sch Sats Sch Sch NSch NSch Sch Hastings Rail Station Stop F 0655 0755 0830 0938 1038 1138 1238 1338 1438 1448 1538 1643 1753 1848 Hastings Havelock Road Stop G 0657 0757 0832 0940 1040 1140 1240 1340 1440 1450 1540 1645 1755 1850 St. Leonards Station Approach 0703 HL 0803 0838 0946 1046 1146 1246 1346 1446 1456 1546 1651 1801 1855 Silverhill Battle Road 0709 0806 0809 0844 0952 1052 1152 1252 1352 1452 1502 1552 1657 1807 1900 Beauport Stonebeach Rise 0715 0811 0815 0850 0958 1058 1158 1258 1358 1458 1508 1558 1703 1813 1905 Telham Telham Lane 0718 0815 0818 0853 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401 1501 1511 1601 1706 1816 1908 Battle Station Approach 0721 0818 0821 0856 1004 1104 1201 1304 1404 1504 1514 1604 1709 1819 1911 Battle Abbey 0725 0822 0825 0900 1011 1108 1211 1308 1411 1508 1518 1608 1713 1823 1913 Claverham College 0835 TTTTTTT Whatlington The Royal Oak T 0847 0907 T 1115 T 1315 T 1515 1525 1615 T 1830 T John's Cross Mountfield School 0733 0753NC 0851 0911 1019 1119 1219 1319 1419 1519 1529 1619 1721 1834 1919 Robertsbridge The George 0737 0757 T 0855 0915 1023 1123 1223 1323 1423 1523 1533 1623 1725 1838 1923 Robertsbridge Community College TT 0837 TTTTTTTT1538 TTTT Robertsbridge Rutley Close 0739 0759 0857 0917 1025 1125 1225 1325 1425 1525
    [Show full text]
  • Saturdays 12 and 19 August 2017 Robertsbridge to Battle (7.3 Or 8.2* Miles)
    The Hastings Line Stage 8: Saturdays 12 and 19 August 2017 Robertsbridge to Battle (7.3 or 8.2* miles). * including optional diversion Meet: Robertsbridge station (GR TQ734235, no toilet) on arrival of the down train due at 11.33am (dep Charing Cross 10.15, Waterloo East 10.18, London Bridge 10.23, Orpington 10.40, Sevenoaks 10.49, Tonbridge 10.58). Maps: OS 1:25 000 Explorer Sheet 124; OS 1:50 000 Landranger 199; E. Sussex street atlas. Outline route: Robertsbridge station - Mountfield Church (lunch stop; 2.5 miles) - Whatlington (4.7 miles; bus service†) - Battle town (optional) - Battle station (7.3 or 8.2 miles). Late start/early finish option: Leave or join at Whatlington after 4.7 miles; thence 2.6 or 3.5 miles to Battle station Ascents: 170m Descents: 150m. Terrain: Undulating, some moderate slopes. Mainly field paths, maybe wet patches near rivers, some nettles. Several stiles Detailed route description: From Robertsbridge station ((A) on map), turn right (W) along Station Road for 100m. Turn left (S) for 200m, bear left under the railway, and continue S for 100m. Where the road turns left, take the metalled track to the right under the railway again. After 100m, fork left onto a footpath following the railway. Follow this path for 700m, and pass ponds on the left and a side path to the railway on the right. Continue south into a wood and after a further 300m bear W beside a stream on the left. 180m further on, fork left over the stream, via a footbridge with squeeze stiles, on a footpath bearing back towards the railway.
    [Show full text]
  • WHATLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL HELD on THURSDAY 21St MAY 2015 in the VILLAGE HALL at 7.30Pm
    MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF WHATLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON THURSDAY 21st MAY 2015 IN THE VILLAGE HALL AT 7.30pm All councillors signed their ‘Declaration of Acceptance of Office’ PRESENT:- Councillors, Apthorp, Fisher, and White District Councillor Kirby-Green 1) ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN Councillor Fisher was proposed and nominated by Councillor White seconded by Councillor Apthorp. The Chairman then signed his ‘Declaration of Acceptance of Office’ and took the Chair. OPEN SESSION / ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY There were six Local Government Electors attending. A Parishioner said she was concerned at the proposal from Rother for the naming of the A.21 or New Road as it is also known. The Post Office have said they have nothing to do with naming of roads. Councillor White said it was unclear if the council have to audit the road in the parish or Rother and we need to know under what Statutory Basis they were doing this. The clerk said she had spoken to Andrew Gale who said Rother were carrying out this process for the whole area as there are many roads in parishes un-named, all the parish council have to do is consult residents on the name they have chosen and forward their choice to them. The work will take him many years to complete so there is no hurry. The clerk will contact Mr Gale and obtain the statutory basis Rother are using for their request. The Chairman of the village hall committee asked if the council could possible increase their payment towards the costs for work on the hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Ww2 Civilian Deaths in and from the Battle District
    WW2 CIVILIAN DEATHS IN AND FROM THE BATTLE DISTRICT Records show that 17 civilians in or from the Battle district died as a result of enemy action in the Second World War. The total for the whole country was about 40,000. This otherwise peaceful area had no industries worth bombing but nevertheless suffered along with the rest of the country – though to a much lesser extent than most of the cities and large towns. This was partly due to its being beneath the bombers’ flight path when they rid themselves of undropped bombs on the way home. If in the First World War those who stayed behind in the Battle district were in negligible danger of an early death this would not be true of the later war: nowhere in the UK was safe from enemy attack, regardless of age – and our own dead ranged from 14 months to 77 years. Details are hard to find because the newspapers of the day were properly restrained from reporting anything that would give help to the enemy or harm local morale. However, the overall position is known from a report of August 1945 which, being unofficial, may not be wholly accurate.1 For the area with which this account is concerned the bombing was, in brief: Notes: HE = high explosive; unexpl = unexploded; MG = machine gun. Blank = 0. V1 High explosive Incendiary Oil MG Civilians Dropped Unexpl etc attacks Killed Injured Ashburnham 7 67 3 740 3 2 3 Battle 27 69 32 55 5 1 2 32 Brede 26 Brightling 4 Bodiam 1 Catsfield 5 16 2 720 4 5 Crowhurst 4 20 14 602 4 18 Dallington 10 31 4 176 4 Ewhurst 9 Mountfield 19 24 1066 1 14 Penhurst 1 Ninfield * Salehurst/Robertsbridge 10 22 1 2 5 Sedlescombe 7 18 2 886 2 Westfield 12 20 4 33 6 Whatlington 3 21 16 900 6 Total 105 308 78 5178 13 3 8 95 Ninfield does not appear in the list in this source.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle and Brede Heritage Consultation Project Final Report
    1 Battle and Brede Heritage Consultation Project Final Report April 2013 Contents: 1. Executive Summary Page 2 2. Introduction Page 5 3. Engagement principles Page 6 4. Context Page 8 5. Main findings Page 9 6. Next steps Page 21 Appendix 1 1: Sample workshop programme Page 22 Appendix 2: Workshop notes Page 23 1 The survey results will be sent as a separate document to the High Weald AONB Unit given the large file size. Engagement to gain insight Involving people in a better future www.hopkinsvanmil.co.uk www.r4c.org.uk 2 1.Executive Summary 1. Introduction Hopkins Van Mil (HVM) in association with Resources for Change (R4C) has been commissioned by the High Weald AONB Unit to develop an initial consultation strategy to inform the work on The Battle and Brede Landscape Partnership Scheme. This is a large-scale, partnership project which seeks to further learning, conservation and participation in the area’s local heritage. In close collaboration with the High Weald AONB Unit, HVM designed and conducted 12 stakeholder representative telephone interviews, 4 telephone interviews with representatives of Parish Councils, issued a hard copy and online stakeholder consultation survey (88 responses); developed a stakeholder map; designed and facilitated a stakeholder workshop attended by 16 people and a smaller workshop attended by representatives of 4 Parish Councils; arranged for three drop in consultation sessions with young people (17 interviews), parents with young children (15 interviews), and a group of over 65s (5 representatives). The full list of those consulted is included in a stakeholder engagement map.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Classified Streets
    EAST SUSSEX HIGHWAYS LIST OF CLASSIFIED ROADS LAST UPDATED OCTOBER 2018 ROTHER DISTRICT USRN STREET LOCALITY TOWN NUMBER 32500091 ADAMS LANE NORTHIAM C97 32500035 ASHDENE HURST GREEN A21 32501720 BALLARDS HILL CROWHURST C307 32502244 BARDOWN ROAD STONEGATE C214 32501357 BARNETS HILL PEASMARSH A268 32501037 BARNHORN ROAD BEXHILL A259 32501028 BATTENHURST ROAD COTTENDEN TICEHURST C212 32500393 BATTERY HILL FAIRLIGHT C92 32500300 BATTLE HILL BATTLE A2100 32500529 BATTLE ROAD DALLINGTON B2096 32501355 BECKLEY ROAD NORTHIAM B2165 32500318 BEECHDOWN WOOD BATTLE A271 32502139 BERNERS HILL FLIMWELL B2087 32501043 BISHOPS LANE ROBERTSBRIDGE C933 32502109 BLUEKILN ROAD WOODS CORNER DALLINGTON C277 32500055 BODIAM ROAD SALEHURST ROBERTSBRIDGE C19 32500081 BODIAM ROAD BODIAM C19 32500087 BODIAM ROAD EWHURST GREEN C19 32500172 BODIAM ROAD SILVERHILL HURST GREEN C19 32500234 BODIAM ROAD STAPLECROSS C19 32500522 BRAYS HILL ASHBURNHAM C412 32500224 BREDE HILL BREDE A28 32500260 BREDE LANE SEDLESCOMBE C21 32501358 BREDE ROAD WESTFIELD A28 32500077 BRIGHTLING ROAD ROBERTSBRIDGE C18 32500202 BRIGHTLING ROAD OXLEYS GREEN BRIGHTLING C18 32500532 BRIGHTLING ROAD WOODS CORNER DALLINGTON C18 32500194 BRIGHTLING VILLAGE BRIGHTLING C18 32501803 BROOM HILL FLIMWELL B2087 32500521 BROWNBREAD STREET ASHBURNHAM C412 32500679 BUCKHURST PLACE BEXHILL B2098 32500647 BUCKHURST ROAD BEXHILL A269 32500478 BUTCHERS LANE THREE OAKS GUESTLING C22 32500200 CACKLE STREET BRIGHTLING C280 32500223 CACKLE STREET BREDE A28 32500289 CALDBEC HILL BATTLE C293 32500338 CAMBER ROAD EAST
    [Show full text]
  • Kelly's Directory 1882, Battle, East Sussex
    Kelly's Directory 1882, Battle, East Sussex BATTLE is an ancient parish and market and union town, with a station on the South Eastern railway and is a polling place for the eastern division of the county, giving its name to the hundred : it is in the rape and county court district of Hastings, diocese of Chichester, archdeaconry of Lewes and rural deanery of Hastings first division, 55¼ miles from London by the South Eastern railway, on the road to and 7 miles north-west from Hastings. The town is governed by a Local Board of Health of nine members: it was anciently called Epiton, but takes its name from the battle of Senlac (Sangue lac) or Hastings, fought here in 1066 by Harold II and William the Norman, in which King Harold and his brother Gurth were slain : Battle stands near a range of hills which formed the battle ground. Battle Abbey, now and since 1857 the property and seat of the Duke of Cleveland K.G. was founded by William the Norman on the spot where Harold was slain and his standard overthrown and was dedicated to St. Martin : in the abbey was preserved the celebrated Battle Abbey Roll, which formed a list of those families which came over with William the Norman : the only rooms ordinarily shown to visitors are the great hall, 57 feet in length, the same in height and 31 feet wide, with a fine timber roof and a vaulted apartment adjoining it, supposed to have been the locutorium or reception room; the gate- house which directly fronts the street from the London road, is a tower about 35 feet square and 54 feet high, comprising three stories, with an octagon turret at each angle and was probably erected by Abbot Retlynge, in the time of Edward III.
    [Show full text]