QUESTION 88: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Westfield? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?
Site WF23 is proposed to accommodate 40 dwellings and is the site of a former care home (the site having been cleared of all buildings). It is proposed to cater for a tenure of retirement living/sheltered housing. The site is at the north fringes of the settlement and not particularly well connected to existing services. The site adjoins the busy A28 and has no footpath connection on the north west side of the road.
The footpath on the other side of the road is narrow and not conducive to pedestrian traffic into the village and could be particularly hazardous and arduous for elderly residents if the site were developed for retirement/sheltered housing. The site is relatively small and it is not clear how 40 dwellings could be accommodated on the site without appearing cramped especially as minimum amenity areas are proposed for each dwelling and site constraints of existing mature boundary trees (no development within root protection areas). The proposed housing tenure would also not be well integrated into the community
and would not provide a balanced mix of housing for the village. The NPPF says to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities local authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs for different groups of the community. Planning for 40 dwellings of a specified tenure out of an allocation of 89 dwellings required for the village seems to be at odds to providing inclusive and mixed communities as advocated by the NPPF. Notwithstanding the LPA's promotion of the site, there appears to substantive concerns for the site's suitability in terms of housing numbers, tenure and isolated location to meet the housing needs of the village.
There would appear to be a more suitable site to meet the housing needs of the village whilst also providing possible employment and community facilities. That is land at Tanyard Farm House, Fishponds Lane, Westfield identified as site WF13 in the DaSA. The site has been rejected for the reasons outlined in the Appendix 3 in the DaSA as follows:-
This is a seismic shift in assessment compared to the assessment of the site when considered as part of the SHLAA. The SHLAA conclusions were that the site is suitable and developable (estimated 40 dwellings) subject to more detailed investigations, including some key factors. The assessment further indicated:-
The landscape concerns now expressed do not seem to be well founded given that the East Sussex Landscape Assessment says there is scope for the landscape to accommodate additional development in the area of WF13 ( a not surprising assessment as the site is well contained in the landscape by established boundary features). In terms of historic field boundaries this need not be a constraint to
development. The historic boundaries marking the eastern and south eastern edges of the site would be retained as could the "partially intact boundary subdividing the site" in any development proposal on the site. The attached historical maps from 1875 to 1974 show in any event how the field pattern within the site has changed with larger fields formed. The medieval field pattern referred to around Tanyard
Farmhouse no longer exists and outbuildings to the rear of the farmhouse do not appear to be of historic interest. The barn to the rear considered to be a non-designated heritage asset is an ordinary brick and tile building probably late Victorian of no particular architectural merit. It adjoins Fishponds Lane could be
retained in any development proposal and its edge of site location should not affect the estimated number of dwellings on the site. The surface water flood risk is very low (based on Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps) and could easily be ameliorated in any scheme. The site is better located than proposed by
WF23 (would have easier access to the centre of the village and facilities) and having a greater site area than WF23 would allow a more integrated and mixed development to be achieved reflecting the more spacious character of development in the village.

For these reasons WF13 should be a preferred site for housing in the village.
Attached ; Landmark Historical Map 1875-1879 Landmark Historical Map 1929
Landmark Historical Map 1972- 1974

QUESTION 93: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
Given the proposition under Question 88 it is requested that the development boundary is adjusted to include site WF13.

Additional supporting information was submitted with the representation and can be found here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28055