Comments on Planning Applications

Below is a list of comments made by Westfield Parish Council. Links have been made available to the planning portal where residents can find all of the relevant documents for each planning application.

Items discussed 15th September 2025
  • RR/2025/1532/P – 44 Greenacres, Westfield, TN35 4QT – Replacement of conservatory with single storey extension.
    • Parish Council Comment – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
  • RR/2025/1406/P – Stanmore, Church Lane, Westfield, TN35 4QA – Variation of condition 4 imposed on RR/2024/763/P to allow alternative ground floor and first floor construction materials.
    • Parish Council Comment – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application and considers the alternative construction materials an improvement on the original design.
  • RR/2025/1432/P – Owlscastle, Cottage Lane, Westfield, TN35 4RT – Proposed domestic studio on existing concrete slab.
    • Parish Council Comment – GENERAL COMMENT – Councillors wished to submit a general comment on this application due to some of the conflicting views.  Some of the positives Councillors noted that the scheme appears thoughtfully designed, with an appropriate landscaping that is well considered within the High Weald context.  It is apparent that external lighting and light-spill have been considered which is greatly welcomed given the site’s location within the High Weald and the importance of protecting dark skies.  As a studio, the proposal adds a degree of diversification of built form and use within the curtilage, which can be beneficial where genuinely ancillary to the host dwelling.
    • There are however some significant reservations Councillors also wished to express.  Whilst the design and landscaping has been well thought out the application is for a new unit/building within the High Weald, where great weight must be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. The need should be particularly robust to allow justification of this application.  It is noted that a stables already has permission on this site but that is for equestrian use and significantly different to this proposed application.  There is a lack of clarity on how the proposal sits within policy.  Is it an ancillary domestic outbuilding/annexe to Owl’s Castle (functionally and physically subordinate), or is it a new, independent unit/building? The application documents should make this explicit, including details of intended use, level of facilities, and relationship to the main house (access, curtilage, parking, and services).
    • If Rother Officer where minded to approve there are areas Councillors ask to be considered to avoid harm to the High Weald and to prevent an undesirable precedent for new, independent dwellings. In particular, please ensure that the building is tied to the existing property, Owl’s Castle, and remains genuinely ancillary with the studio being used solely for purposes incidental to the residential use of Owl’s Castle and shall not be occupied as a separate dwelling or used for primary overnight accommodation.  Nor should the studio be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of separately from Owl’s Castle.  No services to be installed which would enable a self-contained living unit.  Ensure this development will not lead to permitted development rights for extensions, alterations, or conversion of the studio to avoid incremental change harmful to the High Weald.
    • There was also concerned raised about the potential precedent this could set for additional new buildings within the High Weald. If allowed, the decision should give clear, narrowly framed reasons so it is not misread as support for independent new dwellings in similar locations.
  • RR/2025/1279/P – Ridgewell Cottage Lane, Westfield, TN35 4QG – Outline Application for the formation of plot for one dwelling.
    • Parish Council Comment – OBJECT Parish Council voted to object to this planning application. It is noted that since the application was submitted planning application RR/2025/420/P has been approved the footprint of the main house has increased in size. In looking at the site taking into account the approved application to increase the main house, Councillors noted that the application represents an over-development of this plot is out of keeping with the surrounding dwellings. It fails to be sympathetic to local character therefore harms the amenities of adjoining properties contrary to Core Strategy Policy OSS4. Policy EN3 (design quality) and DaSA Policy DEN1 (maintaining landscape/townscape character) have similar requirements and are therefore not met. Access is proposed from an unmade private road/track, which is sub-standard in surface, geometry and drainage. On such routes, intensified vehicular use, servicing and construction traffic will cause conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and present difficulties for refuse and emergency access. The scheme therefore fails DaSA Policy DHG12 (Accesses and Drives), which expects new drives/accesses to be acceptable in highway safety terms and in their construction, including surface water management.
    • The proposed “screening” appears insufficient and would not prevent unacceptable overlooking, headlight glare and general disturbance to home opposite. This is contrary to Core Strategy OSS4(ii) (protecting neighbouring amenity), EN3 (good design/appropriate landscaping), and DaSA Policy DHG11 (Boundary Treatments) which seeks boundary solutions that protect amenity and local character. By carving up the plot, the remaining garden to the host property would be significantly reduced, failing to provide suitably sized private external space. DaSA Policy DHG7 (External Residential Areas) requires appropriately sized private amenity space. Previous Rother decisions commonly reference a minimum rear garden depth of around 10 metres to achieve this this needs to be taken in context of the size of the property and Councillors in reviewing the size of the main house feel this proposal would fall short.
    • Whilst it is noted Rother do not have a 5 year housing supply this application conflicts with several key policies. It would result in overdevelopment, relies on an inappropriate access via an unmade road, offers insufficient screening for neighbours, diminishes the host property’s garden to below acceptable standards, and harms neighbouring amenity. Therefore, in balance of just providing one property the Parish Council respectfully requests that planning permission be refused.
Items discussed 23rd June 2025
  • RR/2025/1177/PIP – Moorside, The Moor, Westfield TN35 4QR – Proposed dwelling to replace storage barn and to be served by existing vehicular access
    • Parish Council Comment – Councillors wished not to comment on this application at this time.
  • RR/2025/788/P – Westfield Football Club, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SB – Variation of conditions 2 and 4 imposed on RR/2024/1233/P to allow change of lighting manufacturer/supplier and adjustment of floodlight operating times.
    • Parish Council Comment – No comment until the Officer has spoken to the Football Club about the changes to check that they are of the same calibre and the proposed changes do not impact on the draft lease agreed between the Parish Council and WFC.  The Officer will submit comments under delegated authority due to time scales.
  • RR/2025/606/P – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ – Erection of two units of holiday accommodation on foundations of previously approved stable and barn under reference RR/2013/788/P.
    • Parish Council Comment – GENERAL COMMENT – Councillors agreed to not comment for this application.
  • RR/2024/1058/P – Mables Farm, Sprays Bridge, Harts Green, TN33 0RR – Erection of an agricultural building.
    • Parish Council Comment – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to the planning application on the following reasons:
      • The application does not adequately demonstrate the functional need for a permanent agricultural building on this site, especially considering the small scale of the holding and the limited number of animals (six ponies, four sheep, and two pygmy goats) currently kept.
      • The proposed building would introduce a larger than necessary, utilitarian structure that will erode the intrinsic character of this sensitive landscape, which is protected at both national and local level and goes against Policy EN1 (Core Strategy) which requires the conservation of the distinctive landscape character of the AONB.
      • There is a clear risk that the approval of this building may establish a precedent that could lead to future applications for residential use (e.g., temporary dwelling), particularly as a prior application for a mobile home on the site (RR/2022/4/P) was refused. The Planning Statement even references intentions to open the farm to the public for educational and therapeutic purposes, which could increase traffic and activity incompatible with its rural setting.
      • The narrow rural lane leading to the site (Harts Green Road) is not suitable for larger vehicles associated with a more intensive use or building construction. There is no transport statement to address how the increased intensity of use (or public/community use) might affect local access and safety.
  • RR/2024/1024/P – White Oaks, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ – Proposed three bedroom, one storey annexe with existing shared entrance and driveway.
    • Parish Council Comment – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this planning application based on the following planning reasons:
      • The proposed ‘annexe’ is a separate three-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling with full kitchen, multiple living spaces, and private entrances far exceeds what would reasonably be required for ancillary use. This is more appropriately classified as a new dwelling in the countryside rather than an annexe.  The proposed annexe is almost the same size as the main dwelling so in relation to scale far exceeds that of an annexe for the main dwelling which is in direct Conflict with Policy DHG10 – Annexes.
      • As established on the points above this proposed development is more akin to a new dwelling rather than a annexe.  The application site is located in the open countryside, and new residential development is strictly controlled under Policy RA3 of the Core Strategy, which states: “Proposals for new dwellings will only be permitted in extremely limited circumstances…” This proposal effectively introduces a new independent dwelling into the countryside by virtue of its layout, facilities, and spatial separation. It does not meet any of the exceptional circumstances allowed under Policy RA3.
      • The applicant has also not demonstrated any genuine functional dependency on the main dwelling that would normally support the justification for an ancillary annexe.
Items discussed 14th May 2025
  • RR/2025/536/P Voles, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ – Proposed single storey rear extension to replace existing conservatory
    • Parish Council Comment – No Objection
  • RR/2025/501/P 3 Fairlight View, New Cut, Westfield TN35 4RH – Proposed first floor side extension to form bedroom and a velux window to existing bedroom within roof.
    • Parish Council Comment – No Objection
  • RR/2025/440/P Homestead, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RU – Proposed two storey side extension porch & internal alterations.
    • Parish Council Comment – No Objection
  • RR/2025/420/P Ridgewell, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4QG – Ground floor extensions to the east integral garaging with pitched roof over, extension to the southwest corner of the footprint enlarging the existing kitchen. Roof alterations: extending the pitched roofs existing over the extensions, 2no pitched roof dormers to the north, 1no flat roof dormer to the west, 1no flat roof dormer to the south. Rooflights to the north.
    • Parish Council Comment – No Objection
Items discussed 10th March 2025
  • RR/2024/2080/P – Moorhurst, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL – Construction of a 64 bed care home (use class C2) over 2 storeys to include landscaping, access, and car parking.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECT – The Councillors discussed the application and confirmed there was limited difference between this application and the previous one.  It was raised why such a similar application would even be allowed.  Councillors agreed that their opinion on the site had not changed.  Authority was delegated to the Officer to work with the surgery to submit further comments of objection and Councillors noted they supported the Integrated Care Board’s comments submitted on the 16/12/2025 noting “For Sedlescombe & Westfield GP practice, our NHS guide size is: 1) 7 rooms (for the circa 6,300+ list) – possibly 8 when the age portfolio is mapped in (1 room per 1,000 rounded up) 2) 3 rooms for post 2021/22 additional workforce – additional roles to support patient needs (national increase). To support patient activity. 3) 1-2 rooms for training & other associated services. 4) This gives an associated premises need of 11-13 clinical rooms. 5) Current clinical rooms total is 8.” Whilst they note there could be room for room extensions they are unclear if this is even feasible assuming this is based on space and cost the current state cannot support the 64 bed care home.
  • RR/2025/227/P – Stonestile Lane, Land at, Sandhole Farm, Westfield TN35 4SA – Change of use of agricultural land to dog exercise field.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Council has no objection to this application if the field is only used by paying customers for the activity of dog walking, and not for any other recreational use.  There will only be two dogs at any one time and no additional hardstanding on the site which the Parish Council supports.  Clarity around the times the site would is needed and a restriction that the hours and days of the week that the facility can operate.  Councillors suggested similar times given as RR/2024/ that limited times on a Saturday and not on Sundays and Bank Holidays to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy OSS4 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.  
  • RR/2025/240/P – 3 South Terrace, Westfield TN35 4QN – Proposed pitch roof to replace flat roof on the existing detached garage building including formation of a room within roof space. (alternative to planning permission RR/2024/1890/P)
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Council supports this application as it is an improvement on the existing building.
  • RR/2025/266/P – 17 Westfield Lane, Heathercroft, Westfield TN37 7NE – Proposed single storey rear extension.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Council has no objection to this application
  • RR/2025/248/P – Chapel Cottage, Chapel Lane, Westfield TN35 4QX – Change of Use of a C3a Dwelling House to a Children’s home for a maximum of three adolescents aged 11-18 with complex needs, with associated carers (C2).
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECT – The Parish Council reviewed this application several areas on concern where raised: 1) Concerns over access – The current condition of the road does not allow easy access. It is an unadopted road and not in a good condition. The increase in traffic down this road would further deteriorate the surface and condition. 2) Concerns over the capacity for the required parking. A similar facility is based on Westfield Lane and requires more than 6 car parking spaces. On road parking is very limited in the vicinity and could lead to serious access issues if cars start parking on the road. 3) Impact on neighbours amenities considering the close proximity between the housing seems to contravene Policy OSS4 (ii) “It does not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties.” The close proximity of the facility which is requiring 2 metre high fences, CCTV and additional car parking. The potential for regular coming and going visitors and potential increase in traffic is likely to impact the nearby residents as well. For these reasons the Parish Council asks that this application is turned down.
Items discussed 20th January 2025
  • RR/2024/2141/P – Summer’s Rest, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ              
    • Provision of new Garden Room (Log Cabin) within the demise of the properties front garden area and associated landscaping to accommodate same – including the enlargement of the existing vehicle gravel driveway.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council did not think the development was outside the boundary line and thought it would be an improvement for the site and therefore supported the application.
  • RR/2024/2026/P – Glebe Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RY      
    • Proposed addition of two small single storey extensions to provide a pantry and an ensuite bathroom.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
Items discussed 13th November 2024
  • RR/2024/1887/P 5 Chapel Lane – Land adjacent, Westfield TN35 4QX
    • Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings), condition 6 (bins) and condition 7 (vehicle access) imposed on RR/2021/2982/P to allow for a revised dwelling design.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council supported the original application and has no objections to the proposed variations.
  • RR/2024/1890/P 3 South Terrace, Westfield TN35 4QN
    • Proposed pitch roof to replace flat roof on the existing detached garage building.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – No Objection to the pitched roof
  • RR/2024/1876/P Wheel House, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RP
    • Proposed amalgamation of two outbuildings and conversion to form a single dwelling (alternative to planning permissions RR/2023/2517/P and RR/2024/527/P).
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – No Objection – The proposal to join the two outbuildings together to form a single dwelling whilst creating a large single dwelling does not have a massive impact on the surrounding area.  The join is between two properties and the old apple store footprint will be reduced creating a single development line across the two properties.  The Apple Store already has planning permission for a detached dwelling so this application would not be adding in any additional dwellings into the Parish.
  • RR/2024/1856/P Thornyridge, Westbrook Lane, Westfield TN35 4PN
    • Proposed conversion and alterations to existing ancillary domestic outbuilding to create a detached dwelling.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – This development is in relation to an existing outbuilding being turned into a separate dwelling.  The reuse of the building means that there will not be any additional development within the HWNL.  The site will use and existing track and is well hidden by the existing hedge and the proposed new planting.  The site seems rather small for a separate dwelling and seems more the size of a holiday let but that would be for Rother Officers to decide. 
  • RR/2024/1846/P Pleasant View, New Cut, Westfield TN35 4RJ
    • Installation of an air-source heat pump.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The only aspect of this application the Parish Council would be concerned about is the noise impact on neighbours and the surrounding area.  If this can be successfully mitigated against and the application is supported by the neighbours then the Parish Council would support this application.
  • RR/2024/1797/P The Beeches, Church Lane, Westfield TN35 4QB
    • Proposed front and side extensions with roof alterations to create new first floor with front and side dormers. New porch and internal alterations including new stairs. Replacement boundary fence including pedestrian gate with hedgerow behind. New electric entrance gates to driveway. Demolition and replacement of garage with annexe. Renewed gravel drive with 4no. new parking spaces with 2 covered by carport.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The current property is in a poor state of repair so any alterations would be welcomed.  Whilst this is a large redevelopment the size of the property seems similar to nearby properties.  The design is also similar to a property two doors down.  The removal of intrusive lighting is also welcomed to maintain the dark skies in the area.
  • RR/2024/1738/P Little Bourne, New Cut, Westfield TN35 4RD
    • Demolition of existing garage and erection of first floor and side extensions.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objection to this application.
Items discussed 16th October 2024
  • RR/2024/1681/P Polruan, New Cut, Westfield TN35 4RD
    • Proposed single storey, pitched roof, rear extension to form a ‘granny annex’.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
  • RR/2024/1625/P 25 Heathlands, Westfield TN35 4QZ
    • Demolition of existing single story side garage and proposed new two story side extension and loft conversion with new rear dormer.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
  • RR/2024/1581/P 35 Park Wood Road, Westfield TN34 2RN
    • Proposed removal of existing front porch and construction of new porch. Removal of garage door and insertion of window. Render front elevation with Eternit boarding to front gables.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
  • RR/2024/1601/FN Down Oak Farm, Main Road, TN35 4SL
    • The meeting was paused at 20:02 to discuss the next item on the agenda with Cllr Baker (the applicant) as there was confusion over the land owned as stated in the report from the agent David Hall for the applicant.  Cllr Baker stated in relation to land at Cottage Lane he didn’t own, nor have any interest nor any control over it however that he did have a right to use it.  This is contrary to the report from Dave Hall which states in paragraph 3.7: “The applicant owns other land used for his rural business, as follows:
      • Land at Downoak Farm, Westfield -15.6 acres (6.3 has)
      • Land at Mill Lane, Westfield – 5.4 acres (2.2 has),
      • Land at Cottage Lane, Westfield – 5.4 acres (2.2 has),
      • Land at Harts Green, Westfield – 16.0 acres (6.5 has)”
    • Cllr Baker then sated he hadn’t read the report from his agent David Hall and that he didn’t know if the application was wrong or not but he didn’t own the land.  The Officer confirmed that land did not have to be owned for a Cllr to have a disclosable pecuniary interest in it.  Cllr Baker also confirmed that he did not live at Luckhurst but owned the building and that the parcel of land called Downoak Farm had also been referred to by several different names in previous planning applications.  The Officer also stated that all Parish Councillors need to be clear in relation to their disclosable pecuniary interests as Parish Councillors at the Parish Council meeting, regardless of what information Rother District Council have.  The meeting reopened at 20:15 and Cllr Baker then left the room.  Cllr Horley and Cllr Skinner both left the room due to personal interest in relation to this application as they are neighbours in the area.
  • RR/2024/1601/FN Down Oak Farm, Main Road, TN35 4SL
    • Application to see if prior approval is required for an agricultural storage building.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT– Following the discussion with Cllr Baker the Councillors RESOLVED that the Officer would write to the planning officers to highlight the potential inaccuracies in the planning application and David Hall’s report in relation to the land ownership of Cottage Lane. Cllrs Horley, Skinner and Baker all rejoined the meeting between 20:15-20.16.
  • RR/2024/1567/P Little Meadow, Westbrook Lane, TN35 4PN
    • Change of use from agricultural field to land for exercising dogs
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT– The Parish Council could not give full comment on this application as there was very little information provided about times of business, number of dogs etc. It would be helpful to understand this first. The recommendations from the Environmental Health Officer seem to address many of the potential concerns for this site.
Items discussed 11th September 2024
  • RR/2024/1440/FN First House, Doleham Lane, Westfield, TN35 4ST
    • Application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed agricultural building for storage of hay and equipment.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – This item is for notice (FN) only. The Parish Council had no further comments to add.
  • RR/2024/1419/FN Crowham Manor Farm, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SR
    • Application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed water tank to provide water supply for livestock.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – This item is for notice (FN) only. The Parish Council had no further comments to add.
  • RR/2024/1233/P Westfield Football Club, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SB
    • Proposed flood lights to serve existing football pitch.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council has been working with Westfield Football Club as the Parish Council will ultimately be the land owners of the site. The Football Club consulted the Parish Council back in June 2023 about the quality of the Musco lighting. This was for the 4 floodlighting poles at 18.3 metres with minimal light spillage. The Parish Council supported the lighting but noted the area was within the HWNL so any usage would need to be kept to a minimum and hours to be agreed and finalised in any lease to ensure minimum impact on wildlife and surrounding properties but does allow the Football Club to continue to flourish.
  • RR/2024/1096/P Westfield Down, Main Road, Westfield
    • Variation of condition 1 of reserved matters approval RR/2017/1293/P (approved pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2009/322/P) to amend the tenure mix to deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme, and variation of condition 6 of reserved matters approval to refer to the new site plan.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT – This application has been put in by Southern Housing after they supported the request of the Parish Council to have two more families from Westfield who fell under the LLP, housed at Westfield Down. If any of the properties those families moved out of also became available for AR then Westfield residents would also have first priority over those. Therefore, the Parish Council and both the District Councillors, fully supports this application IF the two four bed properties go to Westfield residents. The properties they vacate if owed by Southern Housing and within the Parish should also go to Westfield residents or people with a clear link to the Parish.
  • RR/2024/1095/P – Hole Farm, Westfield, TN35 4SA
    • Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling, conversion of outbuilding to create an annexe and the erection of a new garage.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT –  The Parish Council supports this application. The replacement dwelling are in keeping with the area and would not have any detrimental affect on the HWNL. The proposed annex is in close proximity to the main house and is not large enough to serve as a separate dwelling and seems to be in line with DaSA Policy DHG10. The large garage does not have separate living space upstairs and only has dormers on one side of the garage. Therefore the use of the building and it’s close proximity to the house and shared drive again limit the risk of the building being turned into a separate dwelling and clearly it’s intended use is for a garage and storage for the main house. Therefore, the Parish Council supports all aspects of this application.
Items discussed 10th July 2024
  • RR/2024/1068/P – 13 Stablefield, Westfield TN35 4QW      
    • Erection of a single bay garage at front of dwelling (resubmission of RR/2023/2511/P)
    • Parish Council’s Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this planning application.  It would seem the original garage has been converted to be an ancillary room to the main dwelling which is the need now for a garage.  The scale and position of the garage seems to be very out of keeping with the surrounding area.  All the neighbouring garages have flat roofs on them.  The roof pitch for this building is extremely high and imposing and out of scale compared to the surrounding properties and contrary to policy DHG9 (iii) and (vii).  There also seems minimal room for two cars to enter and exit the garages.  It is noted that it is being dug into the ground however, Council query the overall impact the building with the continued pitched roof will have on neighbours and neighbouring properties.
  • RR/2024/981/P – Hop And Hare Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH     
    • Extension to, and re-siting of, shepherds hut for agricultural workers approved under RR/2018/888/P. (Retrospective)         
    • Parish Council’s Comments – OBJECT – The concern with this application is that the shepherd’s hut is not being used for agricultural workers more on volunteers potentially unskilled and is in fact a holiday let.  The shepherds hut has been extended to a size which is more in line with a static caravan and does not look moveable and therefore in breach of the conditions.  Whilst being set onto wheels this is irrelevant if the overall unit cannot be moved which could potentially be the issue looking at the size and positioning of the extended areas.  If this is a holiday let then this needs clarity regardless of the people staying in the unit.  This is further intensification of this site causing further harm to the HWNL so the Parish Council doesn’t not support the application.
  • RR/2024/760/P – Rodgers Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH
    • Extension of theatre to provide a backstage area     
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application. The extension is so modest and would have very little visual impact nor pose any harm to the HWNL.
  • RR/2024/763/P – Stanmore, Church Lane, Westfield TN35 4QA
    • Proposed single storey and two storey extensions, along with conversion of existing garage. Additional decking.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
  • RR/2024/732/P – Vine Cottage, New Cut, Westfield TN35 4RJ         
    • Demolition of dilapidated dwelling. Construction of replacement dwelling with associated parking and landscaping.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
Items discussed 15th May 2024
  • RR/2024/591/P – Cornerways, Mill Lane, Westfield TN35 4SU
    • Erection of three dwellings, together with associated access, car parking, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this planning application for the following reasons:
    • 1. Whilst the visibility splays into the site are adequate the visibility from the development onto Mill Lane are severely dangerous. To get out onto the A28 at the junction the 40mph increases to the national speed limit if you are leaving the village. Therefore, you have cars speeding up as they reach this junction. To make this junction safe significant traffic calming or safety measure should be installed.
    • 2. It is noted that a serious accident has already occurred in the last three years at this junction. It is the Parish Council’s understanding that this resulted in the sad fatality of the motorbike driver. The night was dry with no wind and the accident highlights the dangers of turning into this junction let alone turning out of it. Any increased traffic here would be an increase of hazard to the users. The corner of this junction is practically blind. There is no safe way to see down the A28 especially if you are crossing the road heading down into the village.
    • 3. Whilst the Parish Council would support proper safety measurements for pedestrians crossing this road the footpath itself going down into the village is narrow and dangerous. We have had regular complaints about the condition and safety of this footpath. This was also noted by the Planning Committee when visiting the nearby Moorhurst site. Other planning applications have also been asked for suitable hard standing bus stops which cannot be delivered on the A28 as there is not the room for such additions.
    • 4. It should be noted that in the transport report the 2019 NPPF was quoted which has been superseded by the new NPPF in December 2023.
    • 5. This site is outside the development boundary and therefore would be extending the village boundary into the countryside and an established rural area rather than acting as infill development.
    • 6. It is also not compliant with DaSA Policy DIM1. The site has only three houses allocated on the site but the site clearly is suitable for further development especially with the open ended road system and the positioning of the properties on the site. It would seem far more reasonable for the developer to put in a full application with their intention to develop out the rest of the site or give a clear understanding why a significant part of the site has been left open unless a condition will be attached to do extensive soft landscaping in this area which then cannot be removed for the next ten years.
    • Therefore, the Parish Council objects to this development as safe and accessible access to this site cannot be achieved for all users and the fact it is outside the development boundary. Whilst Rother does not have a 5 year housing supply this development on balance is not in a sustainable site, has very poor access to and from the A28 via Mill Lane and is outside the development boundary in an area of AONB. Whilst the Parish Council recognises the need for private sale family homes this site is not suitable for any development until there is significant safety features and upgrades to the Mill Lane/A28 junction for road users and pedestrians. It also seems the current application is not making full use of the site and as ‘windfall sites’ are also cover by policy DIM1 in the DaSA there seems a need for the whole site to be taken into account.
  • RR/2024/720/O – Woodmans Rest, Bluemans Lane, Westfield TN33 0SE
    • Lawful Development Certificate for the Existing Use of building as an independent dwellinghouse for a continuous period exceeding 4 years.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this application.
Items discussed 13th March 2024
  • RR/2024/342/P – Down Oak Farm, Main Road, TN35 4SL
    • Construction of an agricultural barn
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this application.
    • The Parish Council is aware that the proposed barn is on a site that currently has two active enforcement notices on the site.  This site has been named previously as Down Oak Farm or Downoak Farm (RR/2024/342/P and RR/2016/948/P), Little Down Farm (RR/2021/1490/P) and Littledown Christmas Tree Farm (RR/2019/175/P).  There does seem to be some lack of consistency in the names and titles of different areas.  In the latest planning application RR/2024/342/P it states that the whole are including the Christmas Tree Farm and the associated car park is part of Down Oak Farm.  Historically there was a hedge between the Christmas Tree Farm site and the grassland site bought in 2016 but it would appear this hedge has either been removed or a gap has been cut into it to allow access between the two sites.
    • In the planning statement para 2.1 it states that the site is ‘approximately 15.6 acres’ and notes that additional land was bought to extend rural business.  The Planning Statement also goes onto say in para 2.2: “identifies the land at as Grade 3, which is described as good to moderate quality land, with moderate limitations that affect the choice of crops to be grown, timing and type of cultivation, harvesting or yield. It is mainly suited to grass with occasional arable crops.” However, it is very unclear what land this is referring to as in the site/block plan the whole site has been highlighted. 
    • In the below map it is the understanding of the Parish Council that the solid yellow area is used for the Christmas Tree Farm activities, the lower area with the yellow lines is in fact a road and car park, the green area is not used for live stock.  The only section used and was bought as agricultural land is the remaining area where the proposed barn would go.
  • The Parish Council also feel it is important to note that a section of this site has been subject to activities which have led to two enforcement notices being upheld by the Planning Inspectorate outlined below:
    • Appeal A Ref: APP/U1430/C/22/3306755 – Stables located on land on south side of Luckhurst, Downoak Farm, Main Road, Westfield, East Sussex – The enforcement notice, labelled ‘failure to comply with a condition’, was issued on 12 August 2022.  The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is failure to comply with a condition imposed on a planning permission ref RR/2005/2258/P granted on 7 October 2005. The notice alleges that the condition has not been complied with in that the stable building is being used for the storage and processing/production of timber not relating to the keeping of horses for private recreational purposes.
    • Appeal B Ref: APP/U1430/C/22/3306752 Land at south side of Luckhurst, Down Oak Farm, Westfield, East Sussex – The notice, labelled ‘material change of use’, was issued on 12 August 2022.  The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land from agriculture/forestry to a mixed use of agricultural/forestry use and: (i) the production and processing of firewood and fencing materials from timber imported from other sites; and (ii) the storage of motor vehicles/parts, articulated tractor trailer unit, timber and other domestic and waste materials all unconnected to the agricultural/forestry of the Land.
    • There was also an appeal against planning permission RR/2021/1490/P for the “laying of recycled crush surface and change of use from agriculture to a use for the storage and processing of timber.” The Planning Inspectorate upheld Rother District Council’s decision to refuse permission for this application.
  • Therefore, again it is unclear in the Planning Statement which activities are being referred to that are allowed on site and those which are not.  It is unfortunate that several of the paragraphs within the Planning Statement are so ambiguous. It should also be noted that the large section of grassland was only bought by the applicant in 2016 as outlined in para 2.2.
  • For clarification it is important to see how the land has been used/changed over the years and in the later pictures you and see the activities that have been subject to enforcement notices including a large trailer parked alongside the neighbour’s boundary currently filled with chickens.
  • The Planning Statement para 2.5 it states that there is a small pole barn on site which currently houses cattle. This structure was erected without planning permission which would be required due to the close proximity of the neighbouring properties. Therefore, this building should not be considered as it has been built without permission.
  • The Parish Council objects to this development due to the size and height of the building. This development does not meet the criteria of DEN1 nor DEN 2 as the siting, layout and design do not maintain and reinforce the natural landscape. Historically this grassland area has never had any agricultural barns on site. The size of the building will have a significant impact on the High Weald former AONB now referred to as a protected landscape as it’s position and size make it extremely prominent and result in an incongruous man-made feature out of keeping with and harmful to the natural landscape setting of the High Weald AONB as this was formerly a quite grassland area.
  • The proposal does not meet the criteria of Policies OSS4 (ii) & (iii). The size of the barn the levels of proposed animals on site would significant impact on the residents with the noise and smell that would be emitted from this barn. The site of the barn is significantly close to two neighbouring residential properties and the disturbance would cause unreasonable harm to these residents being able to have a peaceful existence. That is not taking into account the number of properties within a 400m radius. Significantly the new 39 houses at Westfield Down, all the properties nearby the cricket ground, some of the top properties of Workhouse Lane and notably the primary school is just around 450metres away but the entrance to the school on Workhouse Lane is about 400meters.
  • The Parish Council would also ask that the Estate Surveyor to review the proposed levels of ewes, lambs and cattle with calves that are being proposed. The current site has a much smaller number of sheep on there and the proposed numbers seem high for such a small parcel of land. That being said, the Parish Council would still object to an agricultural barn being built on this site.
  • In conclusion the Parish Council objects to this planning application due to the harm to the protected landscape, having a new incongruous man-made feature on the site which has been historically grassland, the volume of proposed animals on site and the significant impact the size, volume, noise and smell the development would have on the neighbours.
Items discussed 21st February 2024
  • RR/2024/233/P – Caprea, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4DZ
    • Proposed dwellinghouse attached to Caprea.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this application. The site is an overdevelopment and inappropriate for this area. The harm caused by the appeal proposal failing to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, is not outweighed by the moderate benefits generated by the proposal. As per paragraph 11d i) of the Framework, the application of policies in the Framework that protect assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the appeal proposal.
    • Whilst the site does fall within the development boundary the impact on the overall character and the precedent it would set would create the area into an urban are rather than a rural setting. Policy DGH9 of the DaSA expects development not to detract from the character and appearance of the wider street-scene of settlement. The overdevelopment of this site will remove all of the grass space outside the front of the building. This is not in keeping with the local area as the properties on the corner of Park View Road/Cottage Lane and the two opposite properties on the corner of Stablefields/Cottage Lane all have significant green spaces and are not concreted over for parking. Many of the properties down Cottage lane have green spaces either lawns or planted frontages characteristic of a rural village. The paving over the lawn and turning this into a car park for the properties prioritising cars and parking over green spaces makes the proposed development look cramped, contrary to the local character of the area and urban in design.
    • Whilst permitted development might be given for one house there are a number of concerns the Parish Council wish to raise in relation to permitted development RR/2023/2393/O:
      • The permitted development should not have included the dropped kerb and is misleading. Whilst the Parish Council notes that permitted development rights are given for covering over the garden it does not cover the dropped kerb. This had to be obtained from ESCC.
      • The license from ESCC is only temporary and runs out mid-April. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a further license will be issued and planning should not be given based on a temporary license for the dropped kerb.
      • It is also concerning having viewed the application they have not cited the fact that there are in fact two trees that would need to be removed to allow for the driveway. Nowhere on the plans for the permitted development nor the planning application have they shown either of these and the fact that they will have to be removed to allow for the driveway to be installed. The Parish Council therefore question if permitted development would be given if these had been shown on the plans. There is also a tree in the top right hand corner of the site and the installation of this driveway which also has not been show. Due to the close proximity to the new driveway there is likely to be significant root damage to this established tree and this also does not seem to have been considered during the permitted development application.
    • The properties along Cottage Lane, which this property is part of, nowhere down the street are there three houses tightly packed together without a break of a driveway. Each house or block of two houses has a space and break either side of it making the properties semi-detached rather than terrace properties. This style is also repeated down Park View Road. Because Caprea already is semi-detached adding another property will give the appearance of a terrace property and is totally out of character of the other properties.
    • On the other side of the road most of the properties have longer driveways that could support 2/3 cars and also have space for a lawn area. The site plan clearly outlines the overdevelopment of this site compared to the surrounding properties. Having the full garden paved over plus another building directly next to the existing property is a significant character change in the area. The planning application for the site will give an urban and boxed in feel and therefore not in keeping with the area and would not only cause harm to the character of the area but also set a dangerous precent for other properties along this road further damaging the rural character this area.
    • Regarding the access Cottage Lane is already a very busy road particularly at school drop off and pick up when parking and traffic becomes a problem to the point of endangering those who use the road. In particular the school children who also walk to school via Cottage Lane. The removal of the kerb will further remove parking spots for families forcing children further down the road to walk to school. Again the license is only temporary and Rother are not able to give permitted development rights for a dropped kerb. Without the dropped kerb permission it will also mean the access will be via the existing entrance and not suitable for two properties.
    • Based on the significant change in character allowing this property to be developed will have on the overall character of the area the Parish Council feels this planning application should be rejected.
  • RR/2024/234/P – Meadlands, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RU
    • Proposed single storey rear extension following the removal of conservatory.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.  The development is modest, low level, in keeping with the overall design of the property and looks like an overall improvement for the property. It is noted the neighbours also support this application.
  • RR/2024/182/O – First House – land adj, Pattletons Farm, Doleham Lane, TN35 45T
    • Lawful Development Certificate for the proposed erection of a hay barn.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – SUPPORT
  • RR/2024/108/PIP – Adjoining, Westbrook Lane, Westfield TN35 4PN
    • Erection of chalet bungalow and garage to include road made up to estate standard with turning head for all residents.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council does not support this application as this is a new dwelling outside of the development boundary and does not meet any of the limited circumstances outlined in Rother’s Core Strategy policy RA3 (iii).  The site can be clearly seen within the AONB therefore would go against policy DEN2 of Rother’s DaSA.  Paragraph 182 of the NPPF states great weight should be given “to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.”  This includes limiting any development within the AONB.  Whilst Rother does not have a 5 year housing supply, the negative impact on the AONB far outweighs any benefit the provision of one chalet bungalow.  Therefore, the Parish Council does not support this application.
  • RR/2023/2493/P – Farmside, Fishponds Lane, Westfield TN35 4SX
  • New drive, access and extension to the curtilage of Fishponds (part retrospective).
  • Parish Council’s Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this planning application.  The Parish Council does not support applications where trees are removed prior to planning applications.  No details have been submitted to justify the extension of the residential curtilage, the extensive driveway or the removal of a number of trees which has now been replaced with a fence which has screened of the site which was previously an open field area.  This is not permitted development and as it is retrospective therefore should be refused as to support such measures sets a dangerous precedent within the parish.
  • RR/2023/1959/P –  Hop And Hare Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH
    • Variation of condition 4 imposed on RR/2021/1698/P to allow use of north-west part of field 2 only for camping maximum of 10 tents for up to 11 months per year including provision for mobile WC and Shower facilities.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – OBJECT – Cllrs confirmed that they still did not support this type of proposal on this site.  They confirmed that the Officer had delegated authority to resubmit their concerns addressing the new planning statement. The Parish Council reiterates that they do not feel this site is suitable for the proposed activities.
    • The Parish Council supports small plots of land and farming. The question of balance of
      proposed activities on any given site, where the site is located, what was previously on the
      site, the current condition of the site and the impact any new activities would have need to be clearly weighed against the harm this will do to the area and the AONB. This site has a long history of no camping, no car park and no buildings on the site. Whilst the Parish Council accepts camping is a way to diversify income for some farms this should and has come with conditions to limit the months this can happen to protect the character and overall impact of the AONB. The Parish Council still strongly objects to the application requesting camping on this site 11 out of twelve months because in balance it would ultimately change the character, use and harm the AONB. The application is for “ONLY FOR CAMPING, FOR MAXIMUM 10 TENTS, FOR UP TO 11 MONTHS PER YEAR, INCLUDING PROVISION FOR MOBILE WC AND SHOWER FACILITIES” and the Parish Council has judged the application on this.
    • This site is far outside the development boundary so development should be strictly limited.
    • Core Strategy policy RA2 gives clear guidance for development. For this application and site the focus is on the camping not the other activities as the application is specifically asking for the extension of camping up to 11 months of the year. The other activities do not require planning and therefore are not for consideration.
      • a. RA2 (i) Maintain the farming capacity of the district, and support the agricultural
        industry, including diversification within farming – The site has already been diversified with the approval of camping on site. Further diversification in relation to camping to allow camping on site for the 11 months would change the appearance of the site to looking as a permanent camping site base on the permanent presence of cars in the car park, the continued use of the warden hut and the ongoing presence of the tents and shower w/cs nearly all year round significantly changes the overall character of the site of an agricultural field.
        b. (ii) Encourage agricultural practices, land-based economic activities and woodland
        management, and related agri-environmental schemes, that reinforce local distinctiveness, landscape character and ecology and (iii) Strictly limit new
        development to that which supports local agricultural, economic or tourism needs and maintains or improves the rural character; and (vii) Support tourism facilities, including touring caravan and camp sites, which respond to identified local needs and are of a scale and location in keeping with the rural character of the countryside; and (viii) Generally conserving the intrinsic value, locally distinctive rural character, landscape features, built heritage, and the natural and ecological resources of the countryside. (viii) Generally conserving the intrinsic value, locally distinctive rural character, landscape features, built heritage, and the natural and ecological resources of the countryside.– All of these conditions are not met in relation to the increase to the camping on site. The application is for “ONLY FOR CAMPING, FOR MAXIMUM 10
        TENTS, FOR UP TO 11 MONTHS PER YEAR, INCLUDING PROVISION FOR MOBILE WC
        AND SHOWER FACILITIES” and should only be judged on these aspects. The original
        application decision notice for RR/2021/1698/P clearly stated that there needed to be a break in the camping season to return the site to its former condition “Reason: To
        protect the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural
        Beauty and the countryside and the living conditions of local residents from noise and
        disturbance during the closed months, having regard to Policies OSS4 (ii) & (iii), RA2
        (viii), RA3 (v), EC6 and EN1 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, and Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework.” The condition in relation to the warden’s accommodation was given “To prevent a permanent dwelling unit being established and thereby protect the character of the High Weald AONB countryside from unnecessary development. (iii) To accord with Policies OSS4(iii), RA3(iii) and EN1(i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.” These two conditions still should stand. The site needs to recover and using the warden’s accommodation 11 out of 12 months has the risk of the accommodation being used all year and give the impression or create a permanent dwelling in the countryside. By allowing 11 out of 12 months camping would again significantly change the character of the site by having constant use of the wardens accommodation, cars being parked on site throughout the year changing the look from an open field to a car parking facility and never giving any time for the land/grass to recover and there would be more permanent structures with the showers and w/cs always being on site changing the site from a distinctively rural location to that of a permanent camp site with permanent living and camping tents/facilities.
      • (iv) Retain traditional historic farm buildings by continued agricultural use or by
        appropriate re-use, in accordance with Policy RA4; – This is not relevant for this
        application.
      • (v) Support rural employment opportunities in keeping with rural character and
        compatible with maintaining farming capacity; – Camping is not maintaining farming
        capacity. All of the activities outlined in the application could take place without the
        onsite camping.
      • (vi) Support enjoyment of the countryside and coast through improving access and
        supporting recreational and leisure facilities that cannot reasonably be located within
        development boundaries, such as equestrian facilities, compatible with the rural
        character of the area; – This is not improving access or supporting recreational/leisure
        facilities and there is no reason why camping facilities like this could not be located
        within the development boundary bar the fact the applicant does not own the land
        within the development boundary. However, this should not be a reason to grant
        permission. As outlined in point 3.b. the increase to 11 out of 12 months is not
        compatible with a rural setting.
    • For the reasons outlined above in para 3.b. conditions for policy DEC2 is also not met and was considered under planning application RR/2021/1698/P and set conditions were given. For the reasons given under RR/2021/1689/P the camping season should not be extended.
    • In the planning statement it states: “Extending the camping season will enable more people to enjoy the countryside (vi) and support the camping side of the business (vii).” – People do not need to camp on site to enjoy the countryside and this can happen without the camping on site. Camping is not agricultural or farming and therefore should not be considered under RA2. The diversification has already been approved in RR/2021/1698/P inline with the limitations of this site and impact on neighbours and should not be extended. The running of horticultural training etc. can happen within the extension of the camping season and without the additional harm to the character and landscape of the AONB.
    • Core Strategy Policy RA3 – none of these conditions have been met as this is in relation to the creation of new dwellings. If the applicant is trying to create a new dwelling in the countryside then a new application should be submitted. However, as previously stated the 11 out of 12 months camping on site would allow the wardens accommodation to be used all year as the one month will be used to ‘undergo annual tidying and stock checking.’ The Parish Council does not support this as new dwellings in the countryside are only allowed in very limited circumstances.
    • The site is viewed by footpath WSF/50/2 and to be able to see the site even for the 150 metres is a significant viewing of a site. The site will go from looking like a rural agricultural field to a permanent campsite with only one month to ‘tidy up’ again significantly changing the overall appearance of the site.
    • In conclusion on balance for this site the overall harm of not allowing the site to be completely clear for seven months of the year will have a detrimental effect on the site which would out way any perceived benefits. This is a small area in a rural setting therefore the scale of activity to be held for 11 out 12 months of the year is not suitable for the site. It will change the distinctive rural character of the space because a) the car park and cars will be in consent use b) the warden’s hut will be in consent use and give the appearance of someone continuously living on site c) it does not improve the local character which was previously a quiet agricultural field would then have a constant human presence on site along with the cars and buildings etc and d) it does not allow anytime for the field and area to return to its original condition and recover.
    • Many of the benefits outlined in the proposal could be delivered without the 11 months of camping. Whilst this original proposal is for ten tents and if given this would set a dangerous precedent which could then be considered for other sites or for further growth of this site as a material planning consideration for future requests for changes or removal of conditions as we have seen on this site already. There is also a serious danger of the warden’s accommodation becoming a permanent dwelling 11 months attending to visitors to the camp sites and then one month staying on site to tidy up and stock take. The Parish Council has already sent in photos and raised concerns about the appearance and condition of the entrance of this site and feel the ongoing use of this site all year will exacerbate this issue.
    • For all the above reasons the Parish Council asks that this planning application is turned down.
  • RR/2022/1118/P – Cottage Lane – Development adjacent to, Westfield TN35 4RD
    • Outline: Proposal for up to 20 dwellings with new access from Cottage Lane.
    • Parish Council’s Comments – OBJECT – Cllrs still objected to the development of this site.  It was confirmed that the Forestry Commission who state in an email to Rother on the 18/01/2024 “We can confirm that it appears to the Forestry Commission that an offence has occurred and that we are minded to serve a Restocking Notice, and we are in contact with the owners.”  It was raised with Rother the concerns that they are looking to determine the application before the Forestry Commission finish their investigation.  The Planning Officer sent a response about these concerns “A planning permission does not override any requirements relating to separate legislation. Where the requirements of separate legislation mean that a planning permission is not implementable, then the development of the site would not be possible.”
  • RR/2022/840/P and RR/2022/2069/P Land at Beech Farm, Hawkhurst Road, TN33 0QS
    • The Parish Clerk noted that Ticehurst Parish Council had won their judicial review in relation to RR/2022/840/P in which the consent order states “the parties agree that the decision is unlawful for the reasons given under Ground 1, it is not necessary to resolve Grounds 2 to 4. In light of that agreement the parties accept that the Decision should be quashed and remitted to the Defendant for redetermination.”  Therefore, RR/2022/840/P and RR/2022/2069/P are expected to go to the March Planning Committee meeting. 
    • RESOLVED – The Parish Council uphold their original comments.  However, Cllr Coupar noted that in her capacity as District Cllr she would not be supporting the decision of the Parish Council and speak in support of the application. 
    • RESOLVED – To delegate authority to the Proper Officer to work with the other Parishes to find a suitable speaker to represent all of the Parishes and to resubmit the Parish Council’s concerns and comments to strongly object to this application.
Items discussed 17th January 2024
  • RR/2023/2631/P – Rose Cottage, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4QE
    • Demolition of garage and erection of outbuilding to provide ancillary living accommodation.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council supports this application as long as the building is tied to the property.  However, concerns have been raised over the impact of losing a garage space in an area of the village which is quite congested and risks cars parking on the roads.
  • RR/2023/2584/P – Greenfields, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SG
    • Erection of a triple garage with gym above.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT– The Parish Council is concerned about the size of the proposed triple garage with gym.  Due to the scale of this property it is more the size of a small dwelling and could potentially be converted into a separate independent dwelling.  As with previous application RR/2022/2978/P the Parish Council does not object to garages but does object to large garages set far apart from the main building with separate services.  Whilst no bedrooms have been indicated on the plans the proposed gym could easily be converted into bedrooms with an ensuite shower room.  With dormers at the front and large windows at the back of the building the design gives the appearance of a small dwelling rather than a garage. The Parish Council therefore raises concerns over Policy DHG10 which stipulates that an extension to the dwelling is normally most appropriate, as this better integrates the annexe into the dwelling for use of shared facilities and providing ready access (including internal linkages).  This also in turn minimises the impact on neighbours, and provides advantages for the longer-term use of the annexe, reducing pressure for future, inappropriate development. Policy DHG9 (ii)(iii)(vi) of the DaSA Local Plan states that extensions and outbuildings will be permitted where they do not detract from the character and appearance of the wider streetscene and that they respect and respond positively to the scale, form, proportions, materials, details and the overall design, character and appearance of the dwelling.  This building seems not to be physically subservient to the main building and excessive in size considering the site is outside the development boundary and within the AONB so new development should be strictly controlled.

Items submitted by Officer under delegated authority

  • RR/2023/2517/P – Wheel House, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RP
    • Proposed conversion of ancillary outbuilding (The Apple Store) with new pitch roof to front section to create detached dwelling.
    • GENERAL COMMENT As the building currently exists the Parish Council has no objection with the proposed detached dwelling if it is to be used as an ancillary living space for the main dwelling and legal conditions are put in place to ensure the detached dwelling is not used as a separate dwelling. If it is to be considered as a fully detached dwelling and therefore a new dwelling within the countryside and outside of the development boundary the Parish Council would object to this under policy RA3: New Development in the Countryside as this application does not meet any of the requirements.
  • RR/2023/2511/P – 13 Stablefield, Westfield TN35 4QW
    • Erect a 2 bay garage at front of dwelling.
    • OBJECT The Parish Council objects to this planning application. It would seem the original garage has been converted to be an ancillary room to the main dwelling which is the need now for a garage. The scale and position of the garage seems to be very out of keeping with the surrounding area. All the neighbouring garages have flat roofs on them. The roof pitch for this building is extremely high and imposing and out of scale compared to the surrounding properties and contrary to policy DHG9 (iii) and (vii). There also seems minimal room for two cars to enter and exit the garages.
  • RR/2023/2436/P – Honey House Barn, Harts Green, Westfield
    • Erection of four polytunnels, potting shed, agricultural barn and machinery storage barn.
    • NO OBJECTION. Barn is clearly designed for agricultural purposes.
  • RR/2023/2276/P – The Wheel Cottage, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4SE
    • Erection of new agricultural barn to replace existing hay barn and anderson shelter.
    • NO OBJECTION. Barn is clearly designed for agricultural purposes and the buildings solely support farm and agricultural based activities. The design and clustering of building reflect nearby farm layouts.
  • RR/2023/2269/P – Crossways, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4QH
    • Proposed erection of detached outbuilding and open fronted car port for incidental use to the main dwelling with minor alterations.
    • NO OBJECTION. Proposals clearly show the proposed buildings will be ancillary to the main dwelling and used for a gym and car port with no intention to use the building as a separate dwelling.
  • RR/2023/2264/P – 89 Westfield Lane, Westfield TN37 7NF
    • Amendments to plans approved under RR/2022/2249/P to re-site proposed summer house to the opposite side of garden.
    • NO OBJECTION.
  • RR/2023/2192/P – Ferndale – land adj, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4SJ
    • Installation of 20m x 40m all-weather turn out and exercise arena for equestrian use.
    • NO OBJECTION.
  • RR/2023/2146/P – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ
    • Erection of replacement dwelling and associated landscaping.
    • NO OBJECTION.

Items Discussed 8th November 2023

  • RR/2023/2262/P – Le Tyrol, Kent Street, TN33 0SF
    • Proposed front extension with first floor accommodation in roof space, internal alterations.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
  • RR/2023/1021/P – Tree Tops – Land adj, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4QG
    • Approval of reserved matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2021/1625/P for the erection of a single storey dwelling.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – Under delegated authority Councillors resolved for the Proper Officer to submit a reply in relation to the new access details and the construction management plan outlining their concerns about design, pedestrian safety, privacy and safety of the resident at Tree Tops and any other matters of safety found within either document. The Proper Officer submitted the following objection:
      • The first matter is the access into the property. The owner of Tree Tops has yet again stated that she does not give permission for any hard surface to be built on her land. The site has a right of access only across the front of her lawn no permission to or assumption of a right to put a hard surface down.
      • The proposed instalment of a new concrete curb will do little to either protect the bank from sliding down onto the 1066 footpath or address the concerns outlaid by the ESCC – Rights of Way Team documented in their letter 07/09/2023. In his report Mathew Harper states that ‘even with edging it is difficult to see that the access would be suitable for large construction materials’. The Parish Council agrees with this statement as the size of the proposed trucks will simply be able to drive over this proposed curbing. In Mr Harper’s letter he shows via photographic evidence how tight the corners are and the risk of large lorries cutting that corner and do not have the space to swing large lorries into that site. It is also unclear why reversing into the site would address such concerns as stated in the construction management plan. There still is not the turning space for the larger vehicles.
      • Another key concern is the r.o.w. is currently sitting very wet. On a site visit it was noted that there is a large amount of surface water laying on top of the area where the supposed traffic would be going across. Whilst the proposed construction of the hard surface access would allow the water to drain downwards it does still raise serious concerns about the outer bank collapsing where the 1066 footpath is. With all of the additional weight of heavy traffic along with the heavy cargo of site offices, skips full of onsite waste trying to pass through this narrow access which sits very wet making it far more likely to have the bank move and slide and eventually collapse without any suitable protection to prevent this. The current access road plans do not properly address this concern.
      • The Construction Management Plan (CMP) makes a number of statements but lacks clarity on detail on position and implementation of the claims made. This includes:
      • Para 2.2.1. references heras fencing to protect the trees in particular those with TPOs but no maps are giving details of how this fencing should be laid out to protect the trees and importantly their root systems.
      • Para 2.2.1. no details on how a site office, welfare container will be able to get onto the site nor the dimensions of the proposed offices to be used. It is proposed that hi-ab vehicles will be used to place onto site but this type of vehicle clearly demonstrates the concerns about suitable access onto site without cutting the corner of the bank. There simply isn’t the room for such a vehicle to safely access this sight via the r.o.w. It also should be noted that the access onto the site looks to be just wide enough to allow a SUV size car onto site at a width of 1965mm yet even the slimmest welfare and site offices seem to be around 24200/2300mm.
      • Para 2.2.3 in reference to signage and barrier tape to protect users of the 1066 footpath this does not seem sufficient enough protection considering proposed the level of trucks and materials going into the site.
      • Para 2.5.1. gives no detail on what sensor lighting will be used and the impact this potentially will have on the neighbours amenities and privacy as well as local wildlife. Further down in para 5.7. says that overnight lighting will be minimised but there should not be any need for any overnight lighting and should not be included. Also the impact of having a motion sensor light at the entrance and exit of the site considering the close proximity to Tree Tops, Linden Lea and Pear Tree House should be reconsidered as it could prove a constant intrusion and have an unreasonable impact on the residents especially as this area has very minimal light pollution.
      • No details are given on where the CCTV will be positioned and how they will ensure members of the public will not be filmed on the footpath and any impact this is going to have on the nearby residents. It also should be noted that the access onto the site looks to be just wide enough to allow a SUV size car onto site at a width of 1965mm yet even the slimmest welfare and site offices seem to be around 24200/2300mm.
      • Para 5.2.2. notes that lorries will have to reverse down Cottage Lane to get onto the site further highlighting how inaccessible the site is and reversing down Cottage Lane (it’s not Chapel Lane as stated). It also doesn’t explain how these huge trucks will manage to manoeuvre safely onto site taking into account they will just about fit on the width of the access road but the length of these vehicles will make it almost impossible for them to back off of Cottage Lane onto the existing driveway and then onto the r.o.w. This will be further exacerbated if the cargo on these trucks etc is over hanging the truck and further restricting movement onto the ‘access road’.
      • Para 5.3.1. talks of a temporary construction access point is required for the proposed development yet does not state if this is different to the proposed ‘access road’ or a different entrance. This point really needs to be clarified.
      • Para 5.3.2 states if onsite parking is not available for contractors they will park on Cottage Lane. As previously outlined this is a very busy well used road with existing parking problems. Parking on this road should not be a fall back as it will endanger other road users and those going to and from the school as even if deliveries are not happening.
      • Para 5.6.2. states that if the roads become muddy a road sweeper will be onsite within 24 hours. Due to the levels of rain we have seen in the last three year and how wet the site sits already this does not seem a effective management of something that could be a hazard for the users of the public footpath and local residents. Processes should be put in place to have mud removed from public footpaths and residents in a much shorter time frame to avoid it piling up and becoming a hazard.
      • Clarification also needs to be given on how the sewerage and foul water from the new site is going to be taken away as this is not clear.

Items Discussed 13th September 2023

  • RR/2023/1560/P – Holland House – land at, Hoads Farm, Moat Lane, TN33 0RY
    • Removal of mobile home to be replaced with a timber cabin for temporary residential use for a period of 3 years.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council agreed that until planning application RR/2023/1490/P had been decided it was not possible to comment on this application as the two are directly linked and currently there is no approved livery on site.
  • RR/2023/1490/P – Holland House, Hoads Farm, Moat Lane, TN33 0RY
    • Change of use of stables and land to a mixed-use comprising horse livery and agriculture.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Council agreed that until the East Sussex County Rural Estates Survey had commented on the viability of the livery based on the size and position Councillors did not feel they could comment on the application.
  • RR/2023/1561/P – Kent House, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SG
    • Erection of garden building for ancillary use including games room, home office and workshop/storage with solar array on green roof.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – Councillors do not object to this application. The building is a single storey and its position is in close proximity to the house and the design is clearly for ancillary use rather than an independent, separately established, small dwelling within the Parish.
  • APP/U1430/W/22/3306274 – Little Down Farm, Main Road – Appeal is made in relation to planning application RR/2021/1490/P for the laying of a recycled crush surface associated with the change of use from agriculture to a use for the storage and processing of timber.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – Under delegated authority the Clerk will write the objection to the appeal. This will be based on the objection to the original planning application RR/2021/1490/P. It was noted that the Parish Council’s position has not changed. Having read the submitted papers for the appeal Councillors confirmed they felt the Case Officer’s report reflects the situation on the site and the Parish Council fully supports the two main concerns as:
      • The impact on the amenities of neighbouring proprieties; and
      • Impact on the character and appearance of the High Weald AONB
    • The Parish Council have also continued to receive complaints about the alleged level of burning on the site. In the ‘Appendix A’ document Mr Fifield has stated on the email 13/05/2022 that all burning has stopped and based on feedback from neighbours this does not seem to be the case. The Parish Council would ask feedback from the enforcement officers if this claim is still relevant now. Mr Fifield has also insinuated that these incidents seem to have influenced the outcome of the planning decision. The Parish Council feel that this is misleading and the reason the planning application was turned down is the fact they go against Rother’s policies, the policies of the High Weald Unit and the adverse impact they have on the AONB and the local neighbour’s amenities and the neighbour’s right to a peaceful life. Therefore, the Parish Council asks that this comment is disregarded.
    • In the appellants report they state that the case officer’s report ‘concludes that the principle of rural employment in this countryside location is acceptable subject to appropriate consideration of the impact on the AONB, amenities of neighbouring properties and setting of the listed building.’ The level of employment on this site does not justify the impact on the AONB nor the impact it is having on neighbour’s amenities. If there are three full time and three part time staff dedicated to working on this site for timber processing this shows the levelling of processing that has been happening on site without any agreed change of use for the site.
    • There is no justification why the timber must be imported onto this site as opposed to other sites outlined in Appendix C, although many of these would also be unsuitable for the processing of timber. It is also noted on that the first map incorrectly shows the neighbour’s field as owned by the appellant and this is incorrect. In the statement it is noted that the appellant’s son does work on Churchill Farm and part of this he ‘manages the wood on this farm’ however, the proposed site is not central and is in fact the furthest away from the Churchill Farm. Having overlaid the map provided in Appendix C with Google maps there is no main wood or woodland to manage. Most of the other sites no longer have woodland on them or have very little woodland that would need managing which would justify such a level of timber processing on the Oakdown farm site. In the original planning statement it states ‘The applicant operates and manages Christmas Tree Farm, which is part of Little Down Farm and also operates and manages other Christmas tree plantations in the area.’ There is no significant amount of Christmas trees on Little Down Farm site itself. As you will see from figure one only a small portion of the larger area of trees is not owned by the Parish Council who lease this land to the Cricket Club. The area the Parish Council does not own is highlighted in yellow on figure one.
    • One of the former Christmas tree plantations known in the area is by Cottage Lane. This site has a planning application in place for the development of 20 (reduced from 28) houses in the lower section of the field under planning reference RR/2022/1118/P. As you will see from the photographs shown in, figures two and three, supplied within the Preliminary Ecological Report uploaded onto the Rother planning portal on the 09/05/2023, the whole site has had every single tree already removed. Therefore, there is no longer any timber on site to process and even if the site is ever replanted it would take years for the timber to grow to a size that could be processed.
    • The design and access statement for this site was also submitted by Mr Fifield so he is aware that this site is no longer being used to process timber. The other site is also down Cottage lane is still a Christmas tree plantation area. However, this seems to be the only site now supplying the Christmas Tree farm with their stock rather than used for processing any timber. Since the removal of this site, the other sites having minimal woodland on them and the other site now being the sole provider for the Christmas tree farm is the figure of 70% of the timber being processed from these sites still accurate? If so it would seem this would equate to a relatively small number of trees needing to be processed and a heavier reliant on trees being brought onto the site to be processed.
    • The site is not an industrial area it is a tranquil rural area with light rural industries nearby such as a very small-scale woodworks. Planning RR/2005/2258/P noted that the stables should only be used for ‘private recreational purposes’ to safeguard the local amenities precisely because it is a tranquil rural location. Nothing other than the excessive works being carried out without permission has increased the level of noise and industry on the site and nearby surrounding area. The Christmas tree farm was in-situ as were the sewerage works in 2005. To propose the nearby Cricket Club and field produce any significant noise to cause a disturbance seems ungenerous to the Cricket Club who manage the site and always play games in a respectful manner keeping any noise at a very low level.
    • The proposed landscaping proposed ignores the fact that it goes against the original rural character of the field and the openness of the area as this site will in fact be screened off. It seems counterproductive to support unsuitable activities in this area by allowing the whole area to be screened off rather than having the space open and used for the original intention for agricultural activities mainly grazing livestock and the private use of the stables. It sets a dangerous precedent if permission is granted to allow the activities to be increased at a later date further reducing the openness of the site and closing it off. Furthermore, there are no details or evidence of what trees would be planted in Appendix B or in any part of the application. Any landscaping to screen these works would need significantly established tree/hedges of a height over 3 metres if this is the proposed heights that timber would be stored at. There is no evidence submitted that any planting would actually detract from the level of noise the timber processing which the case officer acknowledges is a very noisy process. No evidence has been submitted for the depth of the screen or the type of trees that would be planted.
    • There seems to be a lack of understanding throughout the report from the appellant the level of dust and noise a timber processing site causes regardless of when this work is carried out. None of the proposed mitigations would reduce the noise or dust levels to a reasonable level or reduce the number of large trucks coming in and out of the site adding further noise and disruption.
    • A hedge has now been removed between the Christmas Tree Farm and the Oakdown Farm sites to allow access between the two sites. The Parish Council raise this as a concern as there is no evidence of a hedge removal order to approve this rural hedge being removed. We are aware that the nearby field had an environmental study carried out on it and found dormice on site. The Parish Council would be concerned that the removal of this hedge could potentially have removed a vital wildlife corridor for the dormice and other wildlife in this area. Rother enforcement have also been on site as a new 4 metre pole barn has been erected without planning permission.
    • In conclusion the Parish Council do not feel that this site is suitable to diversify into a timber processing business in this rural, tranquil area. The proposed 70% of timber retrieved from the existing sites seems that either the levels are going to be low and not warrant the number of staff to process them or a higher level of timber is now being exported onto site. None of the statements or proposed mitigation will deal with the level of noise the timber processing will generate and the effect the noise and dust is going to have on the neighbours. Due to the level of activity on site already without a change of use and the level of complaints there is a concern that any conditions would not be adhered to and the conditions do not adequately address the key issues of the impact on the AONB and the amenities of the neighbours. This is not a criticism of the Rother Officers but a recognition that the site is not suitable and any conditions would not make it suitable.

Items Discussed 12th July 2023

  • RR/2023/919/P and RR/2022/2935/P – Westfield Down – Land at, Main Road, Westfield Variation of condition 1 of reserved matters approval RR/2017/1293/P – The Clerk confirmed the application is being taken to the July 2023 planning committee. 
  • RR/2023/1375/FN – Great Buckhurst Farm – land to the North West, Bluemans Lane, TN33 0SE – Application to determine if prior approval is required for the creation of a new road to facilitate vehicle mobility between the recently constructed barn from the main group of agricultural buildings and reduce vehicular movement along Bluemans Lane and the (A21).
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council question the need for the internal track on this site.  There is no evidence provided what the track will be used for and what the barn is used for.  Considering the width and length of the track and that it is in the AONB and crosses a river the Parish Council hopes that approval is needed so a properly considered application is brought forward for the District and Parish Council to consider.
  • RR/2023/1327/P – 91 Westfield Lane, Rosemount, Westfield TN37 7NF – Erection of extensions to convert existing bungalow to a two storey dwelling.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application and feels it is a well considered extension to the existing property and it is not intrusive and has no objections from neighbours.
  • RR/2023/1293/P – 33 Churchfield, TN35 4SW – Erection of single storey rear extension (bedroom) and creating new opening at the rear existing elevation.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application and feels it would be suitable to create a new bedroom for this property and it is not intrusive and has no objections from neighbours.
  • RR/2023/1258/P – 20 Westfield Lane, Brithdir, TN37 7NG – Demolition of single storey structure on side of existing dwelling. Erection of new detached dwelling with associated facilities – amendment of design to previously approved Planning Application RR/2021/2626/P.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this application and any amendments.  The site is clearly overdeveloped.
  • RR/2023/1138/P – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane, TN33 0RZ – Amendments to Planning Permission Reference RR/2022/2243/P (Erection of replacement dwelling and associated landscaping).
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application as the amendments are moderate and would be an improvement to the existing site.
  • RR/2023/1022/P – Furtherdown – Land to the rear, Main Road, 6 – Erection of a 3x bedroom residential dwelling with minor alterations to existing vehicle access.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council does not support this application.  This area originally only had two properties Furtherdown and Tudor Cottage.  Planning application RR/2019/2723/P has put in two further properties.  This application will introduce a third property into the are turning what was a rural site into a housing density more suitable for an urban area.  The lose of habitat and overdevelopment should not be overlooked.  The house is not in keeping with any of the surrounding properties. With the nearby property at Tudor Cottage being directly impacted. The proposed elevations will significantly change the character of this area of Westfield and visually have a great impact looking out across the Parish Field.  The track the houses would be using comes out onto a very dangerous part of the A28 and the increased traffic from an additional house is a great concern.  The impact on the AONB and the over urbanisation of this area out ways the need for any additional housing.  The Parish council also questions having just one parking space for a three bedroom house as this does not seem reasonable or practical.  The Parish Council would also like to note that they dispute the current proposed boundary as this is contrary to the documentation the Parish Council holds for the site known at the Parish Field which is a community asset that is held in trust to the community.  The newly erected fence is the wrong side of the ditch and the proposed hedge planting seen in the block plan would in fact be where the ditch should be.  The Parish Council has written and will write again to the applicant noting the boundary issues.

Items Discussed 14th June 2023

  • RR/2022/118/P – Cottage Lane development for 20 houses. Please click here for updates on the Parish Council comments.
  • RR/2023/919/P and RR/2022/2935/P – Westfield Down – Land at, Main Road, Westfield Variation of condition 1 of reserved matters approval RR/2017/1293/P (approved pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2009/322/P) to amend the tenure mix to deliverer a 100% affordable housing scheme.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT . The Parish Council firstly feels that the first key issue is the legal legitimacy of this process without having the Parish Council as a signatory to these proposed variations. The Parish Council do not and have never supported the 100% affordable housing position. The original policy in the DaSA for the site, the planning application and S106 all support a 60% open market and 40% affordable homes. It has been unfortunate that it has taken a significant amount of time for Rother and Optivo to try and regulate their position as this is now impeding the site moving forward. Whilst I appreciate you have yet to receive your legal advice the Parish Council has received legal counsel who has clearly stated the Parish Council should be signatories to any S106 variation. Therefore, it seems unclear how Rother can determine this planning application and for Westfield PC to fully reply until Rother have made their legal position known. Following the legal letter Westfield PC sent via their solicitor Richard Buxton Rother have complied with all the issues raised except for agreeing that Westfield PC should be a legal signatory. To try and move the matter forward the Parish Council would support a compromise of 13 affordable rented, 13 shared ownership and 13 open market properties. This would make the site a truly mixed and sustainable site. It would address the significant short fall in the District for open market properties whilst allowing two thirds of the site to be managed for affordable housing units. The Parish Council would also ask that the S106 reflected this and the amount of units for affordable rented, shared ownership and open market are confirmed and not able to be varied to avoid further changes to the housing mix on the site. It was also commented that the site should be blind in tenure with properties pepper-potted throughout the site in accordance to Rother’s own planning policies. If Rother would accept such a change then the Parish Council would support a deed of variation but not for 100% affordable as it stands. With the inclusion of the open market properties (or market dwellings as defined in the original S106) this will also resolve the issue of removing the triggers referenced in Part 2 and Part 3 of the Third Schedule. The proposed inclusion of ‘Shared Ownership Properties’ would not be acceptable to the Parish Council as this would result in a 100% affordable site. Furthermore the second proposed change on page 4 of the proposed variation para 1.2 allows the District Council to agree to vary the tenure ‘by agreement with the Council’. This could result in the Council varying the tenure and removing all shared ownership properties leaving the Parish Council in a vulnerable position as the legal triggers for the completed works of the recreational ground will be removed in particular para 12.1, part 2 in the Third Schedule. Therefore, this should remain as market dwellings to ensure the recreational works are finished. The Parish Council also raised serious concerns over:
      • The complete removal of clause ten without any reasoning behind this.
      • Concerns again for the proposed changes to para 2, part one of the third schedule and the implications this has for the site raised in previous comments.
      • The proposed deletion of para 7, part one of the third schedule without any confirmed or binding local lettings plan agreed and linked to the S106.
      • The fact that the nominations agreement is being proposed to be removed in its entirety. The nominations agreement is being referred to on page 5 of the proposed variations in para 1.13 but nothing has been seen or drafted what this Nominations Agreement will be as the proposal is to remove the existing one without any citing of a replacement agreement.
      • Object to schedule 6 being removed as the Parish Council does not support a 100% affordable site.
  • RR/2023/1028/P – Hillcrest, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SF Retention of built decking and ramp works.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council notes the concern of the neighbour for the proposed ramp and veranda impacting on their privacy. The Parish Council would strongly urge that any agreed development requires conditions to ensure mitigations are found to stop overlooking the neighbours property and into the house.
  • RR/2023/1017/P – Old Inmans, Westbrook Lane, Westfield TN35 4PN Erection of a two storey side extension.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council would support this application if the materials are in keeping with the area.
  • RR/2023/1021/P – Tree Tops – Land adj, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4QG Approval of reserved matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2021/1625/P for the erection of a single storey dwelling.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council are very concerned about the lack of detail of specific areas with this reserved matters planning application. The application is titled as “Approval of reserved matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2021/1625/P for the erection of a single storey dwelling.” However, there are no details given about the access onto the site in particular in relation to condition 5 and 8 of the decision notice for RR/2021/1625/P. Condition 5 states details for the access should be shown “To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway” and condition 8 states “No development shall commence until details showing the proposed access and the tie-in to the junction with Chapel Lane/Public Footpath Westfield 30, including details of the profile, levels and proposed construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.” It is noted that the Principle Rights of Way Officer has objected to this application based on the lack of details for the protection of the footpath. By not providing any details on these matters despite the reserved matters requiring this and the application stating ‘access’ would be addressed the Parish Council feels this application should be refused until a full application addressing all key matters is submitted. Whilst there is a right of way over the grass the space for vehicles is limited. Smaller vehicles could pass but larger vehicles for construction could not safely pass here. The levels on the grass between the driveway and the public footpath are very unlevel and in the Parish Council’s opinion would not be safe or suitable for larger vehicles to use until the levels are made safe. The close proximity of this access to the well-used and publicised 1066 footpath (Westfield 30) means there is a serious risk to users of this pathway until the issues of access and levels has been agreed. Larger vehicles should not be accessing the site up the bank on the uneven levels as this poses a serious risk to the public. Therefore, the Parish Council questions how this site can be safely constructed with the existing levels and RoW access. The Parish Council would also like to point out that the ‘block plan’ is misleading. The applicant does not own all of the land in red. He only has a right of way over the land known as Tree Tops and the bottom left hand corned of Linden Lea. Also on the proposed site plan the document does not show the services and this needs clarity on where these will be installed as the Parish Council understands the applicant only has access to the services they do not have a right to move these on TreeTops land. If the Officer is minded to approve this application the Parish Council has already requested the matter is taken to the Planning Committee and would ask that a site visit is carried out to see the issues with access and the current levels.

Items Discussed 10th May 2023

  • RR/2023/687/P – 38 Park Wood Road, Westfield, TN34 2RW – Proposed double side storey extension with single storey rear extension and associated landscaping. Rebuild of detached garage.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objection to this application.
  • RR/2023/660/P – 56 Heathlands, Westfield, TN35 4Q – Erection of a single storey rear extension.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objection to this application.
  • RR/2023/629/P – Owls Castle, Cottage Lane, Westfield, TN35 4R – Proposed extension and alterations.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
  • RR/2022/2919/P – Claremont School, Ebdens Hill, Westfield TN37 7P Variation of condition 2 imposed on RR/2020/1825/P to allow changes to the sports pavilion’s design.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – No objection.
  • RR/2022/2852/P – Little Hides, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH Erection of extension to form annex.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – No objection.
  • RR/2022/2765/P – Holyoak, Workhouse Lane, Westfield TN35 4QJ Erection of rear extension, internal re-model and cladding changes.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The councillors felt that the comments submitted for planning application RR/2022/1734/P are still relevant. The parish council still does not support the timber cladding on the property as it is not in keeping with the surrounding area. Having had feedback from local residents it is clear the extension is a cause for concern. Therefore, the Parish Council supports the officer’s comment for turning down planning application RR/2022/1734/P that “the length and height of the proposal situated at this higher ground level would change the outlook for the neighbour and would be overbearing and imposing, harming the amenities of the neighbour” and feels this is still relevant for this planning application.
  • RR/2022/2752/P and RR/2022/2753/L – Valebrooke, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH Internal alterations to the attic level of a Listed Building including the removal of water tanks/ modern water tank mezzanine landing; Removal of partition wall; re-instatement of lath and plaster ceilings; retention and restoration of original floorboards.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – No objection.
  • RR/2022/2756/P – Little Holme, Annexe, Westbrook Lane, Westfield TN35 4PN Erection of infill extension (under the existing roof slope) with internal reconfiguration to improve internal circulation, alteration of the roof and external works including cladding and new windows/doors.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – No objection.
  • RR/2022/2716/P – Whitelands Kennels, Westfield Lane, Westfield TN35 4SB Proposed single storey infill extension and internal alterations.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council would fully support this application.
  • RR/2022/2680/P – Moor Field House, The Moor, Westfield TN35 4QR Erection of detached double garage, potting shed and log store.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – No objection as long as building remains tied to the main residency without separate services.

Items Discussed on the 9th November 2022

  • RR/2021/3010/P Moorhurst, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL Construction of a 64 bed care home (use class C2) over 2 storeys to include landscaping, access, and car parking. Click here for the planning application.
  • RR/2022/2577/P – Moorside, The Moor, Westfield TN35 4QR Erection of single storey ‘orangery’ side extension. Click here for the planning application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this extension and feels it is in keeping with the area and be a welcomed addition to the dwelling.
  • RR/2022/2567/P – Hop and Hare Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH       Variation of condition 6 imposed on planning permission RR/2018/888/P to allow camping equipment to be stored in the barn. Click here for the planning application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council does not see how the current proposed layout of the barn is ancillary or practical.  The current proposed layout in the application shows a significant area of the barn being taken up with the camping equipment.  The priority purpose of the barn was for agricultural use.  In the RR/2022/704/P application the case office Ms Edwards noted “The barn was given planning permission on the basis that it was considered the correct size for the agricultural use, the loss of storage space is not acceptable and there have been no detailed description of quantities of items to be stored as such planning permission will be refused.”  The Parish Council supports these comments in relation to the new planning application RR/2022/2567/P.  The Parish Council feels these are still valid as no dimension are given in the plan and a significant part of the storage looks to be for non-agricultural usage.  Therefore, the Parish Council asks for this to be refused on the same grounds.
  • RR/2022/2528/P – Le Tyrol, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SF Erection of two storey front extension with first floor accommodation in the roof space and internal alterations. Click here for the planning application.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENRAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objection to this planning application if the residents online comments are taken into account.
  • RR/2022/2299/P – 10 Mill Close, Westfield TN35 4RX First floor extension over garage. Loft conversion with roof-light windows. Click here for the planning application.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENRAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objection to this planning application if the residents online comments are taken into account in relation to the rooflights.
  • RR/2022/2243/P – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ  Erection of replacement dwelling and associated landscaping. Click here for the planning application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council would support this planning application if the resident’s online comments are taken into account in relation to the window glazing.
Items Discussed on the 12th October 2022

The Parish Council reviewed all of the planning items and for all items would give a GENERAL COMMENT of No Objection to each planning application.

  • RR/2022/2299/P – 10 Mill Close, Westfield TN35 4RX. First floor extension over garage. Loft conversion with roof-light windows.
  • RR/2022/2249/P – 89 Westfield Lane, Richmond Bungalow, Westfield TN37 7NF. Erection of timber summer house in garden.
  • RR/2022/2129/O – Cedar Wood, Westfield Lane, Westfield TN35 4SB. Certificate of Lawfulness to use an existing building as a single dwelling house.
  • RR/2022/2162/P – 434 The Ridge, Long View, Westfield TN34 2RY. Erection of Victorian style greenhouse with a ridge height of 3085mm and a final height of 3376mm.
  • RR/2022/2189/P – 29 Westfield Lane, Westfield TN37 7NE. Proposed extension to provide additional facilities and improve mobility access.
  • RR/2022/2243/P – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ. Erection of replacement dwelling and associated landscaping.
Items Discussed on the 13th July 2022
  • RR/2022/1118/P – Cottage Lane – Development adjacent to, Westfield TN35 4R. Outline: Proposed 28 dwellings with new access from Cottage Lane. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – Due the the level of interest in this planning application a separate page has been set up with the Parish Council’s objection letter which can be found here.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/1529/P – Whitelands Kennels, Westfield Lane, Westfield TN35 4SB. Proposed single storey front extension and enlargement to existing patio area. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council has no objections to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/1518/P – Oak Meadows – Land Adjacent, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4SG. Demolition of commercial storage building, replace with three bedroom detached family house and associated car parking. To include change of use. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this application. There is no evidence submitted that this commercial site is not viable.. As such, the proposed change of use from a concrete barn into a three-bedroom dwelling would result in the permanent loss of a potentially viable commercial site. The unjustified loss of the site would be contrary to policy DCO1 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019, and as such would contribute towards the erosion of services and facilities and economic activity and opportunity within the village, in conflict with policy RA1 (iii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy. Policy DEC3: Existing Employment Sites and Premises – Effective use of existing employment sites will be secured by: – land and premises currently (or last) in employment, including tourism use, being retained in such use unless it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of its continued use for employment purposes or it would cause serious harm to local amenities. The Parish Council sees no evidence provided to show: – the site is no longer commercially viable; – there has not been a comprehensive and sustained marketing campaign and the attributes outlined such as an 18 month campaign; – there is no evidence the site has been viewed for additional commercial opportunities; – there is no evidence that the site is not financially commercially viable.
  • RR/2022/1587/P – Springfield, Sprays Lane, Westfield TN33 0RU. Construction of a new 3 bay garage/garden store with ancillary accommodation above. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – Whilst the Parish Council would not object to the three bay garage, the ancillary accommodation above seems an over development on this site. The Parish Council are concerned a precedent is being set for large scale garages being built within the AONB. Due to the scale of these properties they are the size of a small dwelling and could be converted into such. Whilst any development the Parish Council would wish to see it tied to the existing residential curtilage and property. However, due to the size of this proposal the Parish Council cannot support it due to concerns on the impact it will have on the AONB due to overdevelopment and setting a precedent for similar large scale developments which could be converted into separate dwellings.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/1583/P – Furtherdown, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL. Erection of 2 No Detached 3 Bedroom Residential Dwellings. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council Objects to this planning application as it is an overdevelopment of the site. The Parish Council objected to the original application RR/2019/2723/P and feels this is a further overdevelopment. Rather than it being a ‘modest built form, scale and mass’ it seems two properties with now an additional two car ports are being squeezes onto the site. The level of density seems far more suited to urban living than in the rural areas. These are being presented as three bedroom houses but the ‘study’ on the first floor is the same size of the other three bedrooms on the floorplan so clearly they are actually four bedroom properties. Also due to the higher ground here it would seem the neighbours are going to be considerably overlooked. The design of the properties does not reflect the character of properties within the Parish. White rendered walls and natural vertical cladding is a distinctively urban design rather than reflective of the characteristics within the nearby rural village. There is no mention on how the development meets the design standards of the High Weald Management criteria. There is no mention of the impact on the AONB and the Parish Council would argue that the proposal does not support: Policy DEN1: Maintaining Landscape Character due to the design, density and overdevelopment of the site. There is also no evidence of enhancing the AONB in line with Policy DEN2. There have been no ecological surveys carried out during the outline planning or this planning application. Due to the location and the links with similar areas (notable Westfield Down and the proposed Cottage Lane development) there is a strong likelihood there will be protected species along with a wide range of opportunities for nesting for birds on the site. The site with the scrub, grassland provides good habitat for reptiles such as common lizard Zooteca vivapara, slow worm Anguis fragilis and grass snake Natrix Helvetica. It is clear any biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved on the site due to the over development of the site. No clear details have been given on how this could be replaced locally. Confirmation of this should be agreed and appropriate ecological surveys should be carried out first before any proposed development can be properly reviewed.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
Items Discussed on the 22nd June 2022
  • RR/2022/1323/P – Land adjacent to Holly Cottage, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RY. Erection of single residential dwelling with associated landscaping and parking. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this planning application as it is not sustainable. The dwelling is outside the development boundary and is not close the the local facilities and services provided with Westfield Parish. With a footprint of 400m2 this house will have a big impact on the AONB especially on the local landscaping and does not reflect the character of the local area. Nor does it conform to Policy RA3 or RA2 which highlights the limiting of building single dwelling within the countryside. This development does not meet any of these requirements. The applicant tries to use Rother’s lack of housing supply as a reason to allow the development.  Due to the level of harm this building will cause to the AONB along with not complying to a wide range of Rother’s policies it also does not protect development within the AONB.  As outlined below in a recent court case was reviewed and rejected stating that preserving the AONB is a freestanding reason to reject a planning application: In Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor (Rev 1) [2021] EWCA Civ 74 Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, rejected a case brought by developer Monkhill against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Holgate J concluded paragraph 172 “is also capable of sustaining a freestanding reason for refusal in general development control in AONBs, National Parks and the [Norfolk] Broads”.  Sir Keith said Monkhill’s main contention was that merely giving ‘great weight’ to ‘conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty’ in an AONB does not provide a clear reason for refusal and that whether planning permission should be refused requires a balancing of all considerations.  The judge said: “Elegantly as those submissions were presented…I cannot accept them.  “They do not, in my view, reflect an accurate understanding of the policies we are considering and the way in which those policies are intended to operate. I think Holgate J was right to reject them, for the reasons he gave.  I agree with him that the inspector’s decision is not flawed by a mistaken interpretation, or unlawful application, of relevant policy.” The level of harm to the AONB is the main reason the Parish Council objects to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2022/1213/P – Bower Cottage, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4QD. Proposed part conversion of detached garage with first floor extension to create home office. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
  • RR/2022/1113/P – 1 Stablefields – Land At, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4QW. Variation of condition 2 imposed on RR/2021/1197/P to reposition garage. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this development. The original application RR/2021/1197/P was advertised to the Parish Council always as two dwellings. Only when planning was given were the parish Council aware that the proposal was now for one dwelling. Therefore, they have requested that this application be brought to Council as any further extension of the house seems unacceptable for the original reasons put forward as the footprint of the site from memory is similar before the plans were amended but the original plans have been removed. The Parish Council has considered this application and objects to the proposal. The site is an overdevelopment and inappropriate for this area. Westfield needs to maintain its green spaces to retain its distinctive character of a rural village. This development would be an overdevelopment squeezing two houses on a site which would see the removal of trees, hedgerows and a green space. The development also would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties by overlooking these properties and impacting on their light and privacy. Regarding the access Cottage Lane is already a very busy road particularly at school drop off and pick up when parking and traffic becomes a problem to the point of endangering those who use the road. In particular the school children who also walk to school via Cottage Lane. The proposal to increase any more traffic on this road the Parish Council strongly objects to. The recent proposed variation would move the garage but also add in yet another upstairs space to a house which is already an overdevelopment of the site and this proposed variation would exasperate this. The move puts the garage right up against the border and gives another steep roof line to enable a dressing room and an en-suite on the first floor. Whilst the Parish Council objected to such a large development in the back garden of another property having the garage where it was originally proposed did allow some light and green space between the properties. Moving the garage would remove this and make this site look even more urban in no way reflecting the characteristic of the local parish nor enhance the AONB.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/838/P – 19 Greenacres, Westfield TN35 4QT. Erection of single storey rear extension. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
  • RR/2022/1266/P – Buckhurst Cottage, Bluemans Lane, Westfield TN33 0SE. Proposed detached triple garage with annexe above for family member. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council does not object in principle. This is on the condition that there is a planning obligation linking the annex to the main property of Buckhurst Cottage and it cannot be turned into a separate dwelling.
  • RR/2022/1331/P – Down Edge, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL. Replacement of failed flat roof over ground floor extension, to include solar installations. Conversion of Catslide roof to form new gable end to provide new bedroom suite. Demolition of kitchen and garage extensions, to be replaced with new garage and modest utility room extension with balcony above. Re-ordering of internal layout to maximise space. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2022/1363/P – White Cottage, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RR. Variation of condition 3 imposed on RR/2018/1510/P to replace the ‘yorkshire’ boarding with green coloured profiled steel sheeting. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council has no objections to this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
Items Discussed on 11th May 2022
  • RR/2022/704/P– Hop and Hare Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH Variation of condition 6 imposed on RR/2018/888/P to allow camping equipment to the stored in the barn. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT –The Parish Council objected to planning application RR/2021/1698/P.  The path leading down to this site is Westfield Path 50b and is a restricted byway. These rights of way only allows a right of way on foot, on horseback, or leading a horse, cycling and for any vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. Also the condition in the planning application RR/2018/888/P state explicitly in condition 6 that the barn on site should only be used for the running of an agricultural unit in accordance of Policy RA3 in the Local Plan.  The Parish Council does not support such an expansion of a business on an agricultural site and within the AONB.  The Parish Council hopes the LPA upholds their original decision on this matter.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/701/ – Plough Inn, The Moor, Westfield TN35 4QR Conversion of building to provide two dwellings. Retention of part of building as public house with flat above and erection of single storey rear extension. Conversion of existing outbuilding to pub dining and provision of pub garden. Erection of side extension to provide beer store. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT –The Parish Council feels this application is similar to the previous application.  However, they would request that the car park is linked to the pub and is not allowed to be developed on as the car park will be integral to the success of the pub.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/653/P – Wheel Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4SE Proposed Building C in the centre of the site for office/light industrial use (Use Class E). Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT –The Parish Council supports this planning application.  Cllr Monro left the room whilst the application was discussed and returned once a decision had been made.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/763/P – Ferndale, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4SJ Conversion of detached garden outbuilding to self-contained holiday let. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT –The Parish Council supports this planning application. 
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2022/772/P – Little Hides, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH Erection of 2 storey annex building. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT –The Parish Council notes that on the plans there is a rather large garage shown attached to the two-storey annex but they could not find the planning application for any garage.  Rother have subsequently confirmed a planning application for the garage had been received.
    • Rother Decision – APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
  • RR/2022/677/P – Owls Castle, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RT Erection of 2 storey extension on north side of property and internal alterations. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT –The Parish Council supports this planning application. 
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2022/840 – The Parish Council noted the application made by the District Councillor.  Concerns were raised for such an unsuitable planning application to be submitted.  It is also unclear about ownership of the site as the application is made by Cllr Vin Hall on behalf of Matthew Hodges but our understanding is that Cllr Vin Hall is in fact the owner of the land.
    • RESOLVED – Due to the application being the Westfield District Cllr, Westfield Parish Cllrs agreed for the Clerk and Chairman to submit an objection under the Clerk’s delegated authority listing the numerous reasons of why the application should not be allowed including, single dwelling on agricultural land, design not in keeping or enhancing the AONB, land is agricultural, outside the development boundary, not in the Sedlescombe NP, does not reflect the character and identity of the beautiful village of Sedlescombe and insufficient ecological surveys carried out.
Items Discussed on March 9th 2022
  • RR/2021/3010/P – Moorhurst, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL. Construction of a 64 bed care home (use class C2) over 2 storeys to include landscaping, access, and car parking. Click here to view planning application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council strongly objects to this planning application.
    • One of the core reasons is that it goes against Policy WES2: Land at the former Moorhurst Care Home, Westfield in the DaSA. This policy outlines the need for 40 dwelling units of which 40% are affordable. The higher density for this housing has been allowed because these are for retirement living/sheltered housing. Westfield housing need register in July 2021 has a high number of 1 and 2 bedroom properties 28 x 1 bed and 18 x 2 bed. Of these we understand at least 27 are for properties of 55 and over. Therefore, the proposed 40 dwellings in Policy WES2 is essential it is developed in line with this policy to meet the housing needs of the Parish. Councillors also cited ‘Five Villages’ in Icklesham as a suitable development. The proposed ‘Class 2’ care home seems more akin to a nursing home so the Parish Council cannot see how the developer can state this ‘meets the needs of the retirement housing element’ as they are clearly very different types of housing and is not sheltered accommodation. Therefore, it will not provide the much needed housing stock for our older residents in the form of sheltered accommodation similar to Rectory Court in Burwash.
    • Policy DEN1: Maintaining Landscape Character states developments should maintain and reinforce the natural and built landscape character of the area in which it is to be located, based on a clear understanding of the distinctive local landscape characteristics. The Parish Council feels the scale and design of the property is not keeping in character with the local area or local context. There are no direct references to any of the nearby properties. The character is large scale and has a far more industrial rather than any reference to a local rural housing. The development design and scale seems far more suited to an urban setting rather than a rural village cited within an AONB.
    • Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) states all development within or affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic beauty. There is no evidence that this building is in anyway enhancing the local AONB. Whilst there is reference to red brick and timber structures the end design does not in any way reflect the historical buildings within the parish that uses such materials. The sheer size and design of the development does not meet the needs in this policy for “Development within the High Weald AONB should be small-scale, in keeping with the landscape and settlement pattern;”.
    • Councillors also raised concerns around the alteration to the vehicular access onto the public highway. The road – is very fast and ideally needs a clear traffic calming scheme and wide and clear visual splays to avoid serious crashes coming into and out of the site.
    • The travel plan seems unrealistic for this location. 30 car parking spaces which is supposed to accommodate staff, residents and visitors seems very lacking. This is a 64 bed care/nursing home which will almost entirely be made up of residents outside of the Parish so many will visit by car.
    • By Bicycle: Encouraging anyone to use bicycles on the A28 without traffic calming seems wholly dangerous. The entrance of the site is on a long straight road into the village which people regularly speed on going in and out of the village.
    • By Foot: The footpath between the site and village is narrow and runs alongside the A28 and the transport report does not mention the width of the footpath. For a wheelchair user and person side by side the footpath should be a minimum of 1500mm however it is noted if a wheelchair user has a personal assistant the Government’s Inclusive Mobility guidance states this width should be closer to 1750mm. It is highly unlikely this footpath meets those widths especially in the summer months when the hedgerows are allowed to become very overgrown.
    • By Bus: Several buses are mentioned but in fact there is only one regular bus service no. 2 which is every one hour. This would still require anyone using the bus to walk along the dangerous footpath alongside the A28.
    • By Train: The route into the village from the train station is over a mile long down a single-track country lane. There is no footpath and no lighting so is very dangerous for walkers at any time of day but especially at night as the road is also very twisty making it hard for car users to see pedestrians. Anyone using a wheelchair or pushing a buggy/pushchair would need to be in the road at all times putting those individuals at risk.
    • Further to the Parish Council’s original objection it is noted that the surgery has NOT been consulted. This was a concerned raised by Parish Councillors about the surgery’s ability to cope with such a planning application and the strain it would put on the surgery. Upon reading the comments from the Practice Manager at the surgery it is clear there is not the infrastructure to have such a development within the Parish. The Parish Council supports the comments from the practice manager and notes that our valued village surgery strongly objects to this planning application and hope such concerns and given due regard.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/4/P WESTFIELD – Mabels Farm, Sprays Bridge, Harts Green, Westfield TN33 0RR. Proposed mobile home for owner to remain on site to care for sick animals. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – Mable’s Farm refers to a specific field. This site is agricultural land and not suitable for a permanent mobile home.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2022/54/P WESTFIELD – Westfield Bowls Club, Church Lane, Westfield TN35 4QB. Erection of an open-sided, wooden Gazebo with a flat roof, mounted over a concrete base. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council fully supports this planning application.  As it is such an easy application just for a gazebo we would hope that this can be quickly approved to help the local sports club get the gazebo up to give some benefit during the outdoor bowls season starting in April.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/2886/P – First House – land to the North of, Pattletons Farm, Doleham Lane, Westfield TN35 4ST. Change of use of existing field to allow placement of two 6 metre yurts and compost toilet / shower. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this change of use to allow the farm diversify their income on a level which has minimum impact and harm on the surrounding AONB.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/2982/P – 5 Chapel Lane – Land adjacent, Westfield TN35 4QX. Construction of a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application on a site which is underused.  The scale and development of the site seems in keeping with the character of the surrounding buildings and the bungalow layout would be less imposing for neighbours.   However, Councillors note there would be disruption whilst the building is happening and assume Rother will make reasonable requests and conditions to ensure minimum distribution is caused.  It is also noted that with vehicles coming to and from the site the owner should consider contributing to the improvements of the road coming into Chapel Lane off of the A28 up to the new development and improve the road surface and broken manhole cover.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2022/168/P – Great Knight’s Farm, Doleham Hill, Westfield, TN35 4NA. Change of use and Conversion of Outbuilding into a Single Holiday Let, including the addition of a pitch roof element, external alterations and new fenestration and use of existing detached 3 bay single storey garage for parking. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this small-scale holiday let within the parish.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2022/67/P – Kirklands, Church Lane, Westfield TN35 4QA. Proposed removal of existing conservatory and erection of garden room. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
Items discussed on February 9th 2022
  • RR/2022/5/P – Wishingwell Cottage, New Cut,Westfield TN35 4RD. Proposed removal of Conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension to form kitchen and utility room. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/3037/P – 10 Baldslow Down, Westfield TN37 7NH. Proposed single storey rear extension. Click her to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/3014/P – Pattletons Barn, Doleham Lane, Westfield TN35 4ST. Proposed single storey rear extension. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/2146/P – Aldershaw Farm – Land Adjacent, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SD. Proposed three box stables with tack room, machinery and hay store. (Resubmission of RR/2020/1860/P). Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/3023/P – Hooters, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RY. Construction of storage barn (Retrospective). Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – OBJECT – The Parish Council is greatly concerned about the clearing of a woodland site and the construction of such a large barn without any planning permission at all.  Having reviewed google maps it would seem that the destruction of the woodland within the AONB has been significant.  In light of the clear disregard to follow the legal processes for obtaining planning permission BEFORE any clearing of the woodland had commenced the Parish Council asks that Rother Officers do not grant planning for this application as the Forestry Commission clearly puts “allowing development on sites where woodland has been cleared illegally sets a dangerous planning precedent, and also advise both the Council and the applicant that the granting of retrospective planning permission does not nullify any offence committed under the Forestry Act prior to the granting of that planning permission.” National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 172 of the NPPF says ‘great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty’ in an AONB.  This application has clearly caused destruction of woodland directly linked with ancient woodland within the AONB.  In the case of Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor (Rev 1) [2021] the High Court, Holgate J concluded paragraph 172 “is also capable of sustaining a freestanding reason for refusal in general development control in AONBs, National Parks and the [Norfolk] Broads”.  This position was upheld in the Court of Appeal.  Such a landmark case shows in law the AONB should be protected and requires no further judgement or comment.  The Parish Council also rejects the ecological reports comments that the site was cleared because of ‘a result of planning permission granted for a residential dwelling.’ The cleared site with the illegal barn structure was not part of any previous planning application so this assumption is false.  Furthermore, the site has been assessed as it is now not as it would have been with the trees present.  Clearing the site will have removed any evidence of protected species.  The fact that it is noted ‘the paddock area and woodland edge does provide some suitable habitats for reptiles, such as slow worms…and common lizards’ shows there was a distinct possibility that the site before it was cleared could have had these protected species on site.  Councillors also raise concerns about the potential of bats and dormice having been present on site, which have full European protection, as then nearby ancient woodland would have been likely to support them.  Therefore as per the Forestry Commission’s request the Parish Council also requests that the site be considered as a ‘broadleaved woodland’ and a ‘Habitat of Principle Importance’. In light of the above the Parish Council strongly requests that this application is refused and the barn is removed and the site is suitably restored to woodland to help mitigate the damage caused.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/107/P – Byways, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SF. Proposed rear extension with loft conversion/new roof including dormer windows, rooflights, and front entrance porch. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2022/41/P – Glebe Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RY. Proposed enlargement and alteration of existing dwelling house. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objection to this application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
Commented on – 23rd December Extraordinary General meeting
  • RR/2021/2773/P – Plough Inn, The Moor, Westfield TN35 4QR. Conversion of building to provide two dwellings. Retention of part of building as public house with flat above and erection of single storey rear extension. Conversion of exiting outbuilding to pub dining and provision of pub garden. Erection of side extension to provide beer store. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – GENERAL COMMENT – Key concern is that the garden needs to be retained as part of the public house property rather than potentially be sold off at a later date.  The Council would ask Rother looks to ensure that if permission is given it is only done if the car park and garden remain attached to the property to safe guard this area from additional development.  Cllrs would also question the sequencing of the works.  It would be easy for the houses to be developed and then there be no monies left over to develop the outhouse and public house.  Therefore Rother are again asked to ensure that the commercial aspects of the development are carried out first before any residential development takes places.  Highways have already highlighted concerns about the lack of parking for the houses and flat which the parish Council would echo.  The proposed outhouse does not seem as big as the former bar/eating area so it would be useful to get clarification on this to ensure there is no overall loss of commercial space.  This does seem the best application so far however the applicant has still not demonstrated that the whole site is not commercially viable.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/2820/P – Buckhurst Cottage, Bluemans Lane, Westfield TN33 0SE. Demolish existing conservatory and erection of two storey front, side and rear extensions and alterations to redesign existing dwelling. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – No objection to planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/2899/P – 115 Westfield Lane, Westfield TN37 7NF. Proposed demolition of single storey side extensions and construction of replacement 2 storey extension and rear first floor extension. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments – No objection to planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
Comments on via the Clerk’s delegated authority in consultation with the Chairman and Councillors – 8th Dec meeting CANCELLED
  • RR/2021/2628/P – Byways, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SF. Proposed rear extension with loft conversion/new roof including dormer windows, juliet balcony and rooflights, and front entrance porch. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comment: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish council does not object to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/2768/P – Redlays Farm, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RR. Variation of section S52 agreement non-serverance clause imposed on planning permission RR/87/0190 to allow the sale of part of holding. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comment: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/2808/P – The Maples, 50 Westfield Lane, Westfield TN37 7NG. Proposed single storey rear extension. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comment: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council has no objections to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
Items reviewed at the 10/11/2021 Full Council meeting
  • RR/2021/2337/P – Little Holme, Westbrook Lane, Westfield TN35 4PN. Conversion of existing detached annexe building to create a new two bedroom dwelling, with new balcony to the rear. Associated division of plot to provide amenity space and detached outbuilding to be converted into summerhouse. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish council does not object to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/2561/FN – Redlays Farm, Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4RR. Application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed agricultural barn. This notification is for information only. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council would like to reiterate their support for this planning application. The Parish Council is unclear why pervious applications have been refused. This is a rural business which requires an additional barn for it’s purpose as a farm. the summary confirms that: The new proposed barn will be situated in an agricultural farmyard with the existing buildings the location of a slurry lagoon. There is agricultural justification and site is within an agricultural unit. Site is an agricultural unit which is some 80 acres and therefore falls under Interpretation D. 1 (1). The development is Class A (b) which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. The farm will benefit from a new barn to support essential farming needs. The Parish Council supports the building of the barn to support this local business.
    • Rother Decision – PLANNING REQUIRED
  • RR/2021/1751/P – Wheel Park Farm Industrial Estate, Wheel Lane, Westfield TN35 4SE Variation of conditions 2, 4, and 5 imposed on RR/2015/703/P (pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2011/2636/P) to allow an amended design for unit A. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supported the previous planning applications R/2015/703/P and the outline planning RR/2011/2636/P. The Parish Council also supports the proposed variations.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/2469/P – Irelands Farm, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SB – Conversion/change of use of existing stable including removal of green house to form holiday let. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/2021/2470/P and RR/2021/2471/L – Irelands Farm, Kent Street, Westfield TN33 0SB Replacement of side extension, removal of green house, internal alteration, replacement of doors and windows, new sewage treatment plant, new air source heat pump. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/2626/P – 20 Westfield Lane, Westfield TN37 7NG Demolition of single storey structure on side of existing dwelling. Erection of new detached dwelling with associated facilities. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council is concerned about over development of the site. 
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
Items commented on via Clerk’s delegated authority in Consultation with Cllrs
  • RR/2021/2167/P – 88 Westfield Lane, Glenwood, Westfield TN37 7NQ. Removal of sun-room to side elevation. Proposed two storey extension, single storey extension, dormer window and new roof design to front elevation. Creation of new dormers to rear. Internal alterations to facilitate the same. Proposed new attached double garage. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish council does not object to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1890/P – Little Hides, Stonestile Lane, TN35 4PH. Single storey extension to rear with balcony above (continuing from existing balcony). Single storey extension to the front with new entrance porch. Double garage to join new front extension. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish council does not object to this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1864/P – Rose Cottage, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4QE. Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish council does not object to this planning application. Cllrs noted the position of the property and the historical features of the property. The building is not listed and in planning terms Cllrs could not see any reason to object to the planning application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/1698/P – Hop and Hare Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH. Use of land for camping for holiday purposes, including provision of shower and WC cubicles and water points(retrospective). Change of use of agricultural/forestry building. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECT – The path leading down to this site is Westfield Path 50b and is a restricted byway. These rights of way only allows a right of way on foot, on horseback, or leading a horse, cycling and for any vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. In some cases there may also be a right to drive animals. Therefore this track is wholly unsuitable to sustain up to 30 cars at a time. The Council also has serious concerns on the environmental impact of such an increased usage of land within the AONB. No details have been given on any mitigation to the AONB and surrounding biodiversity. No details have been given how the water from the showers and how human waste is being managed other than they are ’emptied weekly’. With such an increase of usage on the site were is all of this water and waste going? Overall it seems an over intensification of use for the site.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1746/P – 43 Baldslow Down, Westfield, TN37 7NJ. Proposed ground floor flat roof extension with lantern, alterations and enlargement of existing rear dormer, and formation of pitched roofs over existing front dormer and bay window roofs. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – Proposed changes seem to improve the overall look of the building.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1757/P – Westfield Down – Land At, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL. Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning approval RR/2019/1067/P to allow for revised design of changing rooms building. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council worked with Court Developments and the Football Club with the proposed designs.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1418/P – Restharrow, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RZ. Variation of condition 2 on RR/2020/551/P to allow raising of floor level; raising of West lawn level up by 100mm at the West of the dwelling; provision of fully glazed facade to West elevation; provision of external enclosure to house air source heat pump and refuse bins; reduction in height of building and increase in gross internal floor area of 1.5m2 to 247.5m2. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBEJCT – The Parish Council has no objection to the proposed alterations to the building designs. However there are serious concerns about the changes in levels. Neighbours have already reported issues with water in the area. The Parish Council would ask that a Planning Officer would look to visit the site and see the impact the changes of the levels has. Also it is noted that from the original planning application that any hedgerows if damaged should be replaced with a similar sizer and species. It seems that many of the original hedgerows have been removed and replaced with a non native fir tree. We would ask that this matter is also investigated before any final decision is given on this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1888/P – Heather Cottage, Moor Lane, Westfield TN35 4QU. Proposed first floor side extension on top of existing side extension with mezzanine areas. Proposed porch to front elevation. Internal minor alterations. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this planning application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1927/P – 11 Stablefield, Westfield,TN35 4QW. Proposed single storey rear extension, first floor side extension, enclosed rear facing balcony and internal alterations. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council does not object to any of the ground floor or first floor extension. However Cllrs have concerns about the potential impact of the enclosed balcony and the impact on neighbours. If this aspect of the planning application was removed Cllrs would support the application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
Items reviewed at the 08/09/2021 Full Council meeting
  • RR/2021/1019/P – Sandhole Farm, Westfield Lane, Westfield TN35 4SA. Removal of timber log cabin and replacement with brick and tiled dwelling for farm manager/owner, change of use of land to residential curtilage and new access road. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1094/O – Holland House, Hoads Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RY. Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing residential mobile home. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council can neither confirm nor deny if the mobile home has been in continuous use as residential for any period of time.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/1197/P – 1 Stablefields – Land at, Westfield TN35 4QW. Construction of 2no. detached dwelling houses. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECTS – The Parish Council has considered this application and objects to the proposal. The site is an overdevelopment and inappropriate for this area. Westfield needs to maintain its green spaces to retain its distinctive character of a rural village. This development would be an overdevelopment squeezing two houses on a site which would see the removal of trees, hedgerows and a green space. The development also would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties by overlooking these properties and impacting on their light and privacy. Regarding the access Cottage Lane is already a very busy road particularly at school drop off and pick up when parking and traffic becomes a problem to the point of endangering those who use the road. In particular the school children who also walk to school via Cottage Lane. The proposal to increase any more traffic on this road the Parish Council strongly objects to.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1218/P – Hop and Hare Farm, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH. Variation of condition 2 imposed on RR/2018/888/P to amend the roof profile of previously approved agricultural/forestry building and increase one side to two-storey. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECTS – Council notes the original planning application RR/2018/888/P. The RDC officer noted that the building would be very noticeable in its original design. This new planning application would further increase the roof height and created a bigger impact on the surrounding AONB landscape. This goes against policies DEN1 and DEN2 in the DaSA in accordance with Core Strategy EN1. These policies require development to “maintain and reinforce the natural and built landscape character of the area in which it is to be located” and development within the AONB should be “should be small-scale, in keeping with the landscape and settlement pattern.” The Parish Council feels that this increase in height and change in roof profile does not meet these conditions.
    • Rother Decision – APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
  • RR/2021/1473/P– The Old Chicken Barn, Hoads Farm, Moat Lane, Westfield TN33 0RY. Replace existing chicken barn with 1no detached house on same footprint and raising to accommodate a second floor, however lowering the pitch of the roof to keep the new height to a minimum. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECT – Council noted that the existing building had walls around 4 inches thick and the whole building was in very poor condition.  This planning application would not be a conversion of the building but a complete replacement.  It was also noted that this site is a commercial site not residential so the Parish Council requests that a change of use is first sought.  There has been no evidence that the site is no longer commercially viable in line with RDC Core Strategy policy EC3 Existing Employment Sites and Policy DCO1: Retention of Sites of Social or Economic Value.  The site is also outside of the development boundary.  The proposed plans contravene with policies in the DaSA Policy DEN1: Maintaining Landscape Character and Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The two storey building would be clearly viable making a dramatic impact on the landscape.  The size is also out of character for the area with some 3000sqft of living space.  Policy RA3 Development in the Countryside also states that “the creation of new dwellings in extremely limited circumstances” and for dwellings they must be “of appropriate size, siting and design.”  This development does not meet any of these criteria.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/1490/P – Little Down Farm, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4SL. Laying of recycled crush surface associated with the change of use from agriculture to a use for the storage and processing of timber.  Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECT – In starting discussions about the site it was noted that the address is wrong as this is not Little Down Farm’ it is in fact ‘Downoak Farm’.   There is no connectivity between the site and Little Down Farm which are in fact separated by woodland and mature hedgerows. Councillors also noted that the boundary shown for the application is wrong and the field is in fact lined by hedges and trees and activities are happening on a much wider scale in the area outside of the drawn boundary.  Several of the neighbouring residents have kept a clear log of the regular and completely unacceptable level of disturbance created from this site with the current activities including:
      1. Activities operating up to seven days a week from the early hours to late in the evening. 
      2. The levels of noise and dust have been at levels which has directly impacted the neighbour’s quality of life. 
      3. The level of traffic down the small country tracks has dramatically increased. 
    • The applicant’s agent cites “Policy DEN2 repeats the objectives for the AONB found in Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy” but does not show how the application is compliant with this policy.  The Council feels the scale of proposed activities on the site and the level of commercial activities as highlighted by the letters and photos received from the neighbours show that this site does not comply with these policies.  The site is in fact having a significantly detrimental effect on the AONB and landscape character as the current operations do not give particular care “to maintain the sense of tranquillity of more remote areas, including through maintaining ‘dark skies” nor is there any evidence to “conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic beauty” again evidenced in the photos supplied by neighbours.  The Parish Council has reviewed all the letters from residents and asks that RDC Officers take into account the many valid planning objections they raise including:
      • Inaccuracies in the application re boundary and name along with text within the application which one resident has listed in detail. 
      • No clarity for the requirement to use this site for such activities. 
      • The activities are not ‘ancillary’ and in fact are large scale on a commercial level. 
      • The lack of detail in the current or intensification of activities on the site further and for this reason all aspects of the development should be set out. 
      • The non-conformity of planning permission RR/2005/2258/P where the buildings are conditioned, “not to be used for any purpose other than for private recreational purposes & shall not be used for hire or reward.” 
      • The restrictive covenant on the land, which is a common covenant for other properties on the Down oak estate relating to the 9 acres (ESX 293175).  This clearly states “to be a nuisance annoyance or inconvenience to the Transferor or his successors in title or the owners or occupiers of the adjoining or neighbouring land and the remainder of the farm.  Clearly this is not being met considering the number of residents complaining and the level of detail they give on how it is causing a nuisance and impacting on them. 
      • The lack of compliancy with a number of key policies including:
        1. DEN1 – maintaining landscape character DEN2 – As outlined above. 
        2. The High Weald AONB DEN4 – Biodiversity and green space – Development proposals should support the conservation of biodiversity.  There are no details give how this policy is adhered to and no details on how the site will enhance or conserve the biodiversity of the site.  
        3. DEN5 – Sustainable drainage – No details with the application have been given on managing any run-off from the site on the scale for “greenfield run-off”. 
        4. DEN7 – Environmental pollution – specifically noise in a sensitive area. NPPF states that policy makers must avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life.  From the evidence form the neighbours it would also show that this policy is not being complied with. 
    • Rother Decision – UNDECIDED
  • RR/021/1611/P – Pattletons Barn, Doleham Lane, Westfield TN35 4ST. Erect rear extension and install new doors. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED
  • RR/2021/1625/P – Tree Tops – Land adjoining, off Cottage Lane, Westfield TN35 4QG. Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of a single storey dwelling. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: OBJECT – The Parish Council objects to this development for several reasons. Firstly the development is outside the development boundary. Therefore it is not in a sustainable village location. Westfield has a housing target of 85 houses within the DaSA. These housing numbers are being met with the current land allocation. There is no evidence that this planning application supports the wider housing need of the Parish. It is important that the development boundary is adhered to stop urban sprawl into protected areas especially those within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy RA2 General Strategy for the Countryside states that the overall strategy is to “Strictly limit new development to that which supports local agricultural, economic or tourism needs and maintains or improves the rural character.” This planning application does not meet any of these criteria. Policy RA3 Development in the Countryside states that new dwellings will only be allowed in extremely limited circumstances: a) Dwellings to support farming and other land-based industries. Normally, accommodation will initially be provided on a temporary basis for a period of three years. Both temporary and permanent dwellings will be subject to appropriate occupancy conditions, and all applications should comply with the following criteria: i. Demonstrate a clearly established functional need, relating to a full-time worker primarily employed in the farming and other land-based businesses; ii. Demonstrate the functional need cannot be fulfilled by other existing accommodation in the area; iii. Demonstrate the unit and the agricultural activity concerned are financially sound and have a clear prospect of remaining so; iv. Dwellings are of appropriate size, siting and design. b) The conversion of traditional historic farm buildings in accordance with Policy RA4; c) The one-to-one replacement of an existing dwelling of similar landscape impact; or d) As a ‘rural exception site’ to meet an identified local affordable housing The current planning application does not meet any of these requirements. Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) states “All development within or affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic beauty. This planning application does not meet these requirement as it is outside the development boundary, provides an important green space within the area to maintain the open rural characteristic of the lane. It would also have a great impact on the wildlife and biodiversity of the neighbouring protected trees due to the close proximity to the proposed retained trees. It is likely that significant root damage would be caused during the development along with disturbance to the local wildlife. Although there is a ‘right of way’ across the frontage of Tree Tops this is only to access the land. There is no permission to lay down a permanent road into the adjoining land nor is it suitable in its current state to support regular vehicle access or any heavy duty vehicles. If officers visit the site it is clear the access into the site is next to a steep bank also making the regular usage for vehicles not sustainable as this would in time undermine the bank itself. The proposed access also runs along side the 1066 footpath. Increased vehicle traffic down this road on a well-used footpath should be strongly discouraged in favour of walkers of this route.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL
  • RR/2021/1647/P – Little Hides Farm Cottage, Stonestile Lane, Westfield TN35 4PH. Change of use from land that is non-compliant with agricultural occupancy to curtilage of an existing residential property. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: GENERAL COMMENT – The Parish Council sees no evidence of why it is necessary it increase the residential curtilage of this property as none has been submitted. The land is agricultural so Council questions whether this needs a change of use from agricultural to residential with all the relevant evidence for such a change. The applicant states they are “seeking the change of use…to increase the size of the curtilage and keep the whole scenery of AONB intact; this is in line with paragraph 115 of the NPPF in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.” However there is no evidence of how this is achieved. Until these matters have been addressed the Parish Council asks that the RDC Officer seeks to defer any decision until further evidence has been obtained to answer these questions.
    • Rother Decision – REFUSED.
  • RR/2021/1824/P – 3 Cottage Mews, Main Road, Westfield TN35 4QE. Proposed alterations including garage conversion, enlargement of existing rear raised decking and erection of garden shed. Click here to view application.
    • Parish Council Comments: SUPPORT – The Parish Council supports this application subject to no neighbours being overlooked.
    • Rother Decision – APPROVED CONDITIONAL