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

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.

1. Introduction
1.1 This report is prepared for Westfield Parish Council in response to the Rother District Council (RDC) Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation (2026).

1.2 This response considers the overall RDC spatial strategy and then provides detailed commentary
on the proposed site allocation policies WS3, Land at Moor Farm, WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane, and WS5 Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane, as these sites are considered to have the most direct relationship with, and potential impact on, the core village of Westfield.

1.3 While the Parish Council has reviewed all the proposed allocations within the parish area, it considers that the sites identified on the Hastings Fringes as WS1 and WS2 are broadly acceptable in principle given their relationship to the Hastings urban area and their more limited interaction with the historic and functional core of the village.

1.4 By contrast, the proposed allocations under Policies WS3, WS4 and WS5 have a direct influence on the character, function and infrastructure of the village itself. These sites sit within or directly adjacent to the established settlement pattern of Westfield and therefore raise more substantive considerations in terms of village form, landscape setting, access, infrastructure capacity and the overall scale of growth appropriate to the parish.

1.5 For these reasons, the Parish Council’s response will concentrate on providing a detailed assessment of these three policies and the sites they relate to. This will include consideration of the specific constraints and opportunities associated with each site, together with a review of alternative sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment that may provide different options for accommodating any future growth affecting the village.

1.6 Site allocations must be sound, sustainably located, environmentally responsible and compliant with national policy. As such, this response is also informed by the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2025) which is clear that policies which are inconsistent with the National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) contained within it will be given very limited weight. Therefore, to ensure the enduring application of the RDC Local Plan post adoption, the Parish Council is mindful of both existing and emerging national policies.


2. Summary of Response
2.1 Westfield Parish Council supports the overall spatial strategy set out in the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations within the district, including the Hastings Fringes where the southern part of Westfield Parish benefits from proximity to Hastings and access to services, employment and transport connections.

2.2 The Parish Council also recognises the need to balance the delivery of new housing with the protection of the district’s significant environmental assets, including the High Weald National Landscape, and considers that the strategy broadly reflects this balance, particularly in its application to Westfield.

2.3 However, the Parish Council is mindful that the draft Local Plan identifies a substantial shortfall between the Government’s standard method housing need and the level of housing currently proposed to be delivered through the Plan period. While it acknowledges the constraints faced by the district and the protection afforded to the National Landscape in current and emerging national policy, this shortfall may give rise to further consideration of development opportunities during the later stages of plan preparation or at examination. In that context, it is important that the Local Planning Authority has a clear understanding of community views regarding the relative suitability of sites and the potential direction of any future growth within Westfield.

2.4 Westfield Parish Council does not object to the inclusion of sites WS3 and WS5 but has provided what it hopes is considered helpful commentary in reviewing the proposed policy wording and supporting text for each. The Parish Council maintains its objection to the inclusion of WS4. Notwithstanding the planning consent on the site, the current position in respect of the live re-stocking order and the pending appeal in late 2026 in relation to this means that the site should not be considered available for the purposes of plan making. This is on top of the significant community objection to the site and the Parish Council’s own objections.

2.5 In acknowledging the shortfall of housing provision across the proposed Local Plan in 2.3, the Parish Council has additionally included a review of those sites previously identified through the Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) but not progressed within this iteration of the draft Local Plan. The purpose of this review is not to promote additional development, but to assist, by providing Rother District Council with an informed view of local priorities, constraints and community preferences regarding how any future growth in the parish might best be accommodated should additional housing provision be required.

2.6 Through this approach, the Parish Council seeks to contribute constructively to the plan-making process by ensuring that, if additional development opportunities need to be considered at later stages, the Local Planning Authority is already aware of the relative acceptability of sites from the perspective of the local community and the parish’s long-term spatial character.

3. Settlement Spatial Planning
3.1. This response is informed by a Settlement Spatial Plan (SSP) prepared for Westfield Parish Council through a commissioned piece of work with specialist consultants ONH Planning for Good. This was designed to assist the Parish Council in proactively exploring how future growth in Westfield could be managed and shaped in a coordinated and locally informed way.

3.2. This scenario planning approach allows the potential effects of different growth patterns to be tested against infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints and settlement character, helping the Parish Council and residents consider how development might be accommodated in a coordinated and sustainable way, assessing a range of possible future outcomes, understanding the implications of different growth patterns and identifying a preferred and sustainable growth strategy.

3.3. Importantly, scenario planning moves beyond a narrow, site-by-site assessment that can result in the selection of the ‘least constrained’ sites in isolation. Instead, it promotes a holistic understanding of growth, allowing consideration of when and where a step change in supporting infrastructure may be required and ensuring that infrastructure provision is planned as an integral component of development rather than as an afterthought.

3.4. Westfield Parish Council undertook community engagement during late 2025 on the SPP work. This engagement formed part of the Parish Council’s “Future Westfield” initiative, which aims to proactively consider the implications of future development pressures and ensure that any response to the Local Plan reflects informed community preferences.

3.5. Residents were invited to review a series of five illustrative spatial growth scenarios that explored different ways the village might expand to 2050. These scenarios tested potential development around the northern, eastern and southern edges of the village, as well as more dispersed growth patterns, with each scenario broadly capable of accommodating around 150 dwellings, considered to be an appropriate/likely number to be delivered over the next 25 years – i.e. beyond the emerging Local Plan period and considered to be plausible in terms of existing social and community infrastructure limits (such as school places capacity)

3.6. Residents were asked to provide feedback through an online survey and rate each scenario on a scale from 1 (very unsuitable) to 5 (very suitable). In total, 64 responses were received. The analysis of responses shows that growth to the south of the village, was favoured over other directions and this supports the inclusion of WS3 – Land at Moor Farm.

3.7. Across all scenarios, several consistent themes emerged from the consultation. Residents emphasised:

3.7.1. The importance of ensuring that infrastructure improvements precede or accompany development.
3.7.2. The need to protect the rural character of the village and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) by avoiding large urban-style estates and ensure that any development is carefully designed and integrated into the existing settlement. An ongoing concern linked to this is the worry that Westfield will be subsumed into Hastings and lose it’s distinctive identity and rural characteristics which are also strongly linked to being situated within the HWNL.
3.7.3. Respondents also highlighted the need for development to deliver tangible community benefits, such as improved walking routes, parking solutions, green space and traffic management measures.

3.8. Overall, the engagement indicates that while residents recognise that some level of future growth may be inevitable, this should be carefully managed to respect village character and supported by appropriate infrastructure improvements.

4. Proposed Allocation WS3 Land at Moor Farm

4.1 There is broad support for the Policy wording, however there are several areas where this could be strengthened to ensure the site better connects to the existing community and its setting whilst minimis. The site should be landscape and active travel vision led, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements across the site, making safe connections into existing footways and facilitating use of public transport.

4.2 The requirement for a “a new hedge on the southern boundary of the site” is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of providing screening and mitigating impacts on the setting of the National Landscape and stopping ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL. This should be strengthened with a requirement for strong defensible boundaries to the site, with a combination of dense mixed-native hedgerows and native tree planting creating a strong and distinctive boundary. The development should avoid the loss of existing mature trees (unless they are proven to be a health and safety risk) and any which are lost should be replaced on a two for one basis, with native species to increase canopy cover across the site and reduce its visibility in the wider landscape.

4.3 It is agreed that vehicular access must be from Westfield Lane (A28) to avoid additional vehicle movements through the centre of the village. This access should also include provision for a bus stop complete with appropriate street furniture sympathetic to a rural setting, to serve the new development. There should also be a safe crossing point over the A28 to enable residents using the local bus service to use the north bound service on the western side of the carriageway. This, along with 4.6 and 4.7 (below) would be considered appropriate to include within bullet point ix “Include any necessary off-site highway works necessary to make the development acceptable”

4.4 The inclusion of green infrastructure is consistent with community priorities; however, the policy could provide greater clarity regarding the purpose and function of this space. Residents have highlighted the importance of maintaining green space as a means of avoiding the perception of urbanisation within the village.

4.5 Whilst the proposed policy wording seeking to predominantly locate this in the southern half of the site is agreed, the location provides opportunities to ensure connected Green Infrastructure corridors around the perimeter of the site, linking into the existing mature tree belt along the western boundary and the dense vegetation along Stonestile Lane. The policy again should ensure boundaries are enhanced and strengthened.

4.6 The village play area is located around 400m from the site accessed via the footway along the A28 and is therefore highly likely to be used by residents of the new development. As such this footway need to be of sufficient width to allow safe passage for wheeled access (including pushchairs). This means improvements on the existing footpath along the A28 and good footpaths within any development on site.

4.7 The Council welcomes the inclusion of the requirement of the development to include pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 44) that crosses the site. However, this footpath should be upgraded to an all-weather permeable surface. The Council also agrees with the requirement to “Include appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site to link to the existing footways, including new footways to link the new development to the existing Westfield Lane and Moor Lane footways.” This is a critical of the allocation and must result in providing a preferrable and safe access to the village centre, including the Primary School away from the A28.

4.8 Residents also raised concerns about drainage and surface water management during the engagement process. The current WS3 wording does not appear to include explicit reference to a drainage strategy or sustainable drainage systems. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies recorded incidents of sewer flooding affecting Westfield, indicating that the village has experienced local drainage and surface water related flooding in the recent past. The presence of recorded sewer flooding incidents highlights the importance of ensuring that new development incorporates robust surface water management and sustainable drainage measures.
5. Proposed Allocation WS4 Land on east side of Cottage Lane
5.1 Whilst there is an outline consent for 20 dwellings (RR/2022/1118/P), the Parish Council object to the inclusion of this site, the current position in relation to the live restocking order means this site is not considered deliverable for 10 years. With the appeal not being heard until the end of 2026 it is unlikely the site could be included. The site was opposed by residents on a wide range of issues including:
5.2 Overdevelopment & policy conflict: The scheme is considered too large for a rural parish within the AONB, conflicting with local and national planning policies and risking urbanisation of the countryside.
5.3 Unsustainable location: Poor connectivity to village services, no safe or viable footpath network, and reliance on cars make the site unsuitable for development.
5.4 Harm to AONB landscape: Significant visual impact, loss of green space, light pollution, and damage to the character and scenic beauty of the protected landscape.
5.5 Affordable housing mismatch: Proposed housing mix does not reflect local need, particularly lacking smaller (1–2 bed) homes.
5.6 Ecological concerns: Inadequate surveys, potential presence of protected species, loss of habitats and hedgerows, and unclear biodiversity net gain.
5.7 Highway safety issues: Increased traffic on narrow country lanes, dangerous junctions, lack of safe pedestrian access, and insufficient transport mitigation.
5.8 Flooding risk: Existing drainage and surface water problems likely to worsen; mitigation proposals considered insufficient.
5.9 Loss of agricultural land: Development would remove productive farmland and existing rural business use without justification.
5.10 Procedural and environmental concerns: Site clearance before determination, possible biodiversity loss, and potential regulatory breaches raise concerns about proper assessment.

5.11 Whilst the Parish Council disagrees with the inclusion of the site, it has still reviewed the proposed policy wording in the event that the site remains within the Local Plan as it progresses. As such the policy must allow for these concerns to be addressed/mitigated at the reserved matters stage should the restocking order not be upheld and the site released for development.

5.12 Whilst the policy requires the inclusion of “appropriate pedestrian infrastructure inside and outside the site” and “pedestrian access onto the Public Right of Way (Westfield 27) that is adjacent to the southern boundary”, the wording does not provide sufficient clarity or certainty in terms of ensuring that residents will be able to walk, safely, on foot, from the development site into the village centre and the surgery.

5.13 As the S106 agreement requires an upgrading of footpath 28 and the inclusion of a safe crossing point across the A28 to access the bus stops. This must be reflected in the policy wording, with the inclusion of the requirement for a signalised crossing point given the lack of visibility as you emerge from footpath 28 onto the main road.

5.14 The footway on the short stretch of the A28 on the southbound carriageway of the road between the crossing point, bus stop and village surgery entrance will also require widening to prevent pedestrians being struck by passing traffic given the limited width of the current path.

5.15 The appropriate pedestrian infrastructure should also include some way of prioritising pedestrian movements between footpath 27 and 28 along Cottage Lane to ensure drivers do not come into conflict with those on foot.

5.16 In addition, there are unresolved issues around surface water management. Whilst the Policy recognises the surface water flood risk through clause v) “Include no built development in the southern part of the site which is shown to be at risk of surface water flooding”, there should be a specific policy clause ( included within condition 7 of the consent ) to require the submission of an appropriately designed surface water drainage system to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to ensure flood risks are not increased elsewhere.
6 Proposed Allocation WS5 Freshfields Farm
6.1 WS5 proposes the allocation of land at Freshfields Farm, Westfield Lane for approximately 2,000 sqm of business floorspace (Use Class E(g) or B8), using the existing access from the A28 and requiring pedestrian links, landscape sensitivity assessment within the High Weald National Landscape, design reflecting agricultural character, retention of boundary trees and hedgerows, and a landscape buffer to the neighbouring caravan park.
6.2 The Parish Council does not object to this allocation on the basis that WS5 may provide an opportunity to support local employment growth, which aligns with wider Local Plan objectives for supporting the rural economy.
6.3 However, the policy wording should be stronger in terms of responding to the setting of the site and needing to ensure a landscape led design. Whilst there is reference to agricultural character, the policy does not explicitly address height, massing, external materials or lighting impacts. Given the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape, clearer design parameters would help ensure development integrates into the landscape rather than appearing industrial or urban in form. It is therefore suggested that a small number of clauses could be amended.
6.4 Clause iii) should be expanded as follows:
“Development proposals must demonstrate a landscape-led design approach that conserves and enhances the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, informed by a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment. Buildings must be modest in scale and carefully integrated into the landscape, with height, massing and footprint limited to ensure that development remains visually subservient to the surrounding rural setting”
6.5 Clause iv) should be strengthened to state:
“Buildings should be designed to reflect the form, scale and materials of traditional agricultural buildings or farmstead groups typical of the High Weald, avoiding large industrial forms or extensive uninterrupted roof spans”.
6.6 Clause v) should be enhanced with the following:
“Development proposals must include substantial structural landscaping and retention of existing trees and hedgerows to provide effective screening and integration with the surrounding landscape. External lighting should be minimised and designed to protect the dark night skies characteristic of the National Landscape.”
6.7 Strengthening the policy wording in these areas would help ensure that the site allocation responds more fully to the concerns expressed by the community when responding to the Settlement Spatial Plan work and better protect the character of Westfield and its setting within the High Weald National Landscape.
6.8 Finally, given the potential for the identified use classes for E(g) or B8 uses to generate heavy goods vehicle traffic and the concerns raised by the community in respect of traffic generation from development, the policy could be strengthened by requiring a detailed Transport Assessment.
7 Existing Allocation
7.1 The Parish Council notes that site WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which was previously allocated in the Development and Site Allocations Plan, for housing with care was granted on appeal in September 2025 (APP/U1430/W/24/3354261)
7.2 Evidence from the Parish Council’s community engagement exercise indicates that this site would be more appropriately used for residential development. The site represents previously developed and already allocated land that is better related to the existing village and closer to services than most of the alternative greenfield sites considered. Redevelopment of such land aligns more closely with community preference than expansion into open countryside.
7.3 In this context, the Parish Council considers that the site could reasonably be identified within the emerging Local Plan as suitable for residential development (Use Class C3). As such it would be considered appropriate to reallocate the site in the emerging Local Plan for both C2 and C3 use. Whilst this would only modestly increase the overall level of development proposed for the parish, it would provide flexibility in how the site is developed, should the consented scheme not come forward for any reason, enabling the site to contribute to meeting local housing needs while reflecting community preferences and supporting the efficient reuse of previously developed land. Any residential redevelopment should be subject to appropriate safeguards including traffic and parking mitigation, contributions to local infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including a safe crossing point and access to the existing footpath and footway networks and bus stops.
8 Rejected sites
8.1 The Parish Council Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material was expressly designed to test broad spatial options for future growth in the village rather than simply react to individual sites. It assumed that some growth was likely, that all scenarios would sit within the National Landscape, and that the exercise should help identify the most logical places for any future development. It also assumed that development on the Hastings Fringe to the south of the parish may already be brought forward through the Local Plan.
8.2 A PDF copy of the Settlement Spatial Plan community engagement material is provided for reference. The resident survey showed that the strongest support was for Scenario 4 (Southern Growth +) and Scenario 5 (Distributed Pockets), with Scenario 3 (Southern Growth) close behind. Scenario 1 (Northern Growth) had very limited support, and Scenario 2 (Eastern Growth) attracted minimal support. Across all options, the strongest recurring themes were that growth should be limited, infrastructure-led, sensitive to village character, and should avoid urban-style expansion. Residents consistently prioritised traffic and road safety, drainage and flooding, school and GP capacity, and protection of the High Weald landscape and village setting.
8.3 Taken together, the community preference is for carefully managed, modest form of growth. As such, if more land is ever needed, sites that are well related to the southern village edge, accessible to the village centre, and capable of being planned with strong landscape buffers are more likely to align with community evidence than more remote or exposed alternatives. This also fits with the current position that WS3 is conditionally acceptable in principle, subject to stronger safeguards on design, infrastructure and landscape treatment.
8.4 Second, there is support for a limited “distributed pockets” approach, but only in a very restrained sense. This scenario performed strongly because it was seen as balanced and flexible, allowing modest growth while protecting the core village character.
8.5 In HELAA terms, this indicates that sites that are either previously developed or already allocated land close to services, or very modest edge-of-settlement opportunities capable of being landscape-led and supported by pedestrian and highway improvements would be preferred by the community.

8.6 The clearest example is WES0002 (Former Moorhurst Care Home), which the Parish assessment identifies as better suited to housing than many greenfield options because it is previously used/allocated land, closer to services, and less intrusive in landscape terms than most alternatives.

8.7 A second example is WES0042 (land west of the A28). Both the HELAA and the Settlement Spatial Plan assessment indicate that this site could only ever be appropriate, if at all, as a small, high-quality, landscape-led scheme. The HELAA says it could potentially offer such an opportunity, including improved pedestrian infrastructure, but also notes that it is highly visible at the village entrance and in long views from Hastings, and that its landscape and access impacts require further consideration. The Parish assessment reaches the same conclusion: only very limited development could be contemplated, and larger or standard estate-style development would conflict with community priorities.
Locations that should generally be avoided
8.8 The following sites conflict with multiple community priorities including landscape protection, sustainability, access, and infrastructure capacity.
8.8 Countryside encroachment and isolated locations:
8.8.1 WES0043 – Troyd Farm, Moat Lane
8.8.2 WES0044 – Thala Farm, Mill Lane
8.8.3 WES0022 – Thornyridge field
8.8.4 WES0039 – Land opposite church, Vicarage Lane
8.9 These sites:
8.9.1 Extend development into open countryside
8.9.2 Harm High Weald landscape character
8.9.3 Have poor or unsafe access
8.9.4 Are remote from services
8.9.5 Increase car dependency
8.10 Parish conclusion: These locations are not supported by community opinion and comments or the proposed Local Plan policies and should not be prioritised.
8.11 Environmentally constrained or unsustainable sites:
8.11.1 WES0023 – Tanyard Farm (previously assessed unsuitable)
8.11.2 WES0024 - Land north of Fishponds Lane and east of Workhouse Lane (locally sensitive site as close to a ghyll and subject to significant surface water and flooding)
8.11.3 WES0036 – Land north of Wheel Lane (Local Wildlife Site)
8.11.4 WES0037 – Land north of Churchfield (loss of open space)
8.11.5 WES0041 – Woodside, Moat Lane (isolated and flood risk)
8.12 These sites raise significant concerns relating to:
8.12.1 Biodiversity and habitat loss
8.12.2 Landscape harm
8.12.3 Unsustainable access
8.12.4 Loss of community green space
8.13 Parish conclusion: These sites are not appropriate for development and conflict directly with resident priorities and clearly harm the protected National Landscape.
8.14 The combined evidence it is clear that open countryside, isolated sites, ribbon-development locations, sites allowing ongoing encroachment into the HWNL and environmentally constrained land should be avoided for Westfield Parish to maintain it’s rural character and to protect to local landscapes and the areas of unique environmental sensitivities.
9 Conclusion
9.1 Westfield Parish Council broadly supports the overall spatial strategy of the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, particularly the principle of directing growth towards the most sustainable locations while recognising the constraints associated with the High Weald National Landscape.
9.2 The Parish Council does not object in principle to the proposed allocations WS3 and WS5. However, the policy wording should be strengthened to ensure development is landscape-led giving clear and new boundaries not allowing ongoing ‘creep’ into the HWNL, well integrated with the existing settlement, and supported by appropriate infrastructure, particularly safe pedestrian connectivity, drainage measures and high-quality design that reflects the rural character of the village.
9.3 Evidence from the Settlement Spatial Plan work and community engagement indicates that residents accept that some level of growth may occur but strongly favour development that is modest in scale, infrastructure-led and sensitive to the village’s landscape setting.
9.4 Should additional housing provision need to be considered at later stages of the plan-making process, the evidence suggests that the most appropriate opportunities would be previously developed or already allocated land, or sites closely related to the southern edge of the village capable of being delivered in a coordinated and landscape-led manner. Conversely, more isolated or environmentally sensitive sites would conflict with both HELAA findings and community priorities.
9.5 The Parish Council hopes that this response will assist Rother District Council in refining the Local Plan and ensuring that any future development in Westfield is delivered in a sustainable manner that respects the character of the village and reflects community priorities.