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

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations
On behalf of our clients, the Stapylton-Smith Family, who own the Land at Steellands Farm, Field Rise, Ticehurst that was previously promoted via the Call for Sites, these representations are in response to the Regulation 18 consultation on proposed site allocations for the Rother Local Plan 2025–2042, specifically in relation to Policy TC1: Land at Steellands Farm, Field Rise, Ticehurst.

The landowner fully supports the principle of allocating this site for residential development and welcomes its identification through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) process as a suitable, available and achievable location for new homes in Ticehurst. The site represents a logical and sustainable extension to the village at a time when the district faces an acute and well-documented housing land shortfall.

However, in order to ensure the policy is sound and deliverable, and consistent with national planning policy, a number of modifications to the policy wording are respectfully sought. These modifications do not seek to undermine the intent of the policy, but rather to ensure it provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to respond to matters that can only be properly determined at the planning application stage, once detailed surveys, assessments and design work have been undertaken.

It is essential that the policy for Site TC1 is considered in the context of the Council’s significant and acknowledged housing land shortfall.

The HELAA and Site Selection Methodology Background Paper (January 2026) confirms that, following an extensive review of all available sites in summer 2025 – including sites previously rejected due to landscape and sustainability concerns – the total identified supply across the district is 8,427 dwellings, equating to approximately 495 dwellings per annum over the 17-year plan period.

This is compared to a Local Housing Need (LHN) of 912 dwellings per annum, calculated using the Government’s revised standard method following the December 2024 NPPF. The district therefore faces a structural shortfall of over 45% against its identified housing need. In this context, each and every allocated site – including Site TC1 – makes a meaningful and necessary contribution to the Council’s ability to demonstrate soundness at examination.

The HELAA Background Paper further records that the review process involved reconsidering sites previously rejected within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL), specifically to determine whether impacts could be mitigated to an acceptable degree. The fact that Site TC1 survived and was maintained through this rigorous review process is a significant material consideration that further demonstrates its appropriateness for allocation.

Critically, the Windfall Assessment (Appendix 2 of the HELAA Background Paper) records that Ticehurst achieved a net small-site windfall completion figure of -5 dwellings over the 10-year monitoring period from 2009/10 to 2018/19 (Figure 7 of the Windfall Assessment). This is one of only two settlements in the district to record a negative figure.

In other words, Ticehurst has experienced a net loss of dwellings through organic small-site development over the past decade. This data reinforces the importance of Policy TC1 as the principal mechanism for delivering meaningful housing growth in the village, and further strengthens the case for ensuring the policy is not unnecessarily restrictive in terms of the quantum of development it can accommodate.

Support for the Allocation in Principle

The allocation of Land at Steellands Farm is supported without reservation in principle. The site is well related to the existing settlement of Ticehurst, lying adjacent to established residential development along Field Rise, and in close proximity to Ticehurst and Flimwell Primary School. It has a realistic prospect of delivering a vehicular and pedestrian access from Field Rise, as confirmed by initial Highways Authority commentary referenced in the supporting text.

Site TC1’s identification as a Greenfield site within the High Weald National Landscape is acknowledged, and the landowner is committed to ensuring that any development is designed sensitively and in accordance with the policies of the National Landscape designation. The requirements of Policy LAN3 and the High Weald National Landscape Unit’s Technical Advice Note on Dark Skies are fully accepted.

Dwelling Numbers, Density and Design (Policy TC1)

Issue

The policy states that the site is allocated for “some 54 new dwellings” at an indicative density of 30 dwellings per hectare across an indicative built development area of 1.8 hectares.

Whilst the use of “some” is noted and welcomed as providing a degree of flexibility, it is considered that the policy and its supporting text do not go far enough in making clear the genuinely indicative nature of all the numerical parameters.

In this regard, attention is drawn to the density guidance set out in the HELAA and Site Selection Methodology Background Paper (January 2026). Figure 4 of that document sets out the “Option B – higher density” approach adopted for calculating site capacity in the HELAA, which establishes an appropriate density range for villages with development boundaries of 25–45 dwellings per hectare, with an average of 35 dph.

The indicative density of 30 dph proposed for Site TC1 falls below this average and at the lower end of the applicable range. The policy should not therefore be interpreted as constraining development to 30 dph where detailed design work, landscape assessment and the requirements of the HWNL support a higher density within this established range.

Given the district’s acute housing shortfall and the Council’s need to maximise the efficient use of land – as required by NPPF paragraph 130 – it is particularly important that the policy does not inadvertently cap development at the lower end of the density range.

Recommended Modification

It is requested that the supporting text is amended to make explicit that the dwelling number, density and built area statistics are genuinely indicative and do not constitute fixed parameters or a ceiling on development. The precise quantum of development will be determined at the planning application stage, informed by detailed landscape sensitivity assessment, site-specific design, and the findings of all required technical surveys. A modest variation in dwelling numbers above or below the indicative figure should not be treated as a departure from the allocation.
Suggested addition to supporting text:

“The indicative dwelling figure of ‘some 54’, the indicative density of 30 dwellings per hectare, and the associated built area statistics are not intended to operate as fixed parameters or as a ceiling on development. The applicable density range for village sites, as set out in the Council’s HELAA evidence base, is 25–45 dwellings per hectare. The precise number of dwellings, layout, heights and built footprint will be determined at the planning application stage, having regard to the findings of the required landscape sensitivity assessment and other technical evidence, and subject to the requirements of this policy.”

Building Heights

A specific concern arises from the following passage in the supporting text to Policy TC1, which relates to the southern field:

“…this part of the site could be more suited to low-rise dwellings.”

It is submitted that this reference to “low-rise dwellings” is premature and inappropriate at the allocation stage, and should be removed or substantially qualified. The reasons for this are set out below.

First, building height is a detailed design matter that should not be fixed – even in indicative terms – before the landscape sensitivity assessment required by the policy has been carried out. That assessment is specifically commissioned to determine an appropriate layout, form and detailed design for the site. Pre-empting its conclusions by characterising the southern field as suited only to “low-rise” development in the supporting text risks fettering the assessment before it has taken place, and could prejudge the outcome of the planning application process. For Site TC1 it is truly difficult to be able to assess the impact that the proposals could have on the National Landscape from Lower Platts without this assessment, given the rising topography of Cherry Tree Field.

Secondly, the concept of “low-rise” is undefined both within Policy TC1 and within the wider Local Plan. Without a clear and agreed definition – whether expressed in terms of storeys, ridge height, eaves height or relationship to adjacent buildings – the reference is incapable of forming a reliable or consistent basis for development management decisions. Its inclusion in the supporting text therefore creates ambiguity rather than clarity, and risks generating unnecessary conflict at the application stage.

Thirdly, whether a two-storey dwelling constitutes “low-rise” in this context is a matter that can only be assessed having regard to the topography, the character of the surrounding area, the findings of the landscape sensitivity assessment, and the conclusions of the heritage impact assessment in respect of the adjacent listed public house. All of these matters remain to be properly evaluated. It is therefore not possible at this stage to conclude that anything other than a particular building height would be appropriate, and it would be wrong in principle for the allocation to purport to do so.

Fourthly, the NPPF (paragraph 130) requires planning policies to ensure developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. Fixing – or implying – a height constraint in the supporting text before the landscape evidence base has been completed is inconsistent with this requirement, particularly in the context of the district’s significant housing land shortfall.

Recommended Modification

It is requested that the reference to “low-rise dwellings” in the supporting text to Policy TC1 be removed and replaced with wording that appropriately defers this question to the required assessment process. The following amendment is proposed:

Current wording: “…this part of the site could be more suited to low-rise dwellings.”

Suggested wording: “…the appropriate scale, height and massing of development in this part of the site will be determined through the landscape sensitivity assessment required by the policy, having regard to the topography, the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed public house.”

This approach ensures that building height is considered carefully and on the basis of proper evidence, without either ruling out or pre-approving any particular scale of development in advance of that evidence being produced. It is consistent with the NPPF’s approach to design, which requires decisions to be based on thorough assessment of context rather than blanket height restrictions applied at the plan-making stage.

Design and Landscape Requirements

The landscape and design-related policy requirements in Policy TC1 are accepted in full. The landowner recognises the sensitivity of the High Weald National Landscape designation and the HELAA Background Paper’s detailed framework for assessing HWNL impacts – covering natural systems, settlement character, routeways, woodland, fieldscape, dark skies, aesthetic qualities and land-based economy.

The landowner is committed to ensuring that development conserves and enhances landscape character in accordance with this framework. The following requirements are fully supported:

• The requirement for a landscape sensitivity assessment to inform layout, form and detailed design;
• Retention and enhancement of historic hedgerows and treebelts on all site boundaries, consistent with the HELAA’s fieldscape and settlement character components;
• Retention and protection of the existing pond, with an appropriate ecological buffer informed by survey;
• Compliance with Policy LAN3 and the High Weald National Landscape Unit’s Technical Advice Note on Dark Skies, consistent with the HELAA dark skies character component;
• Delivery of appropriate landscape buffers to the setting of the Grade II listed public house.

It is, however, respectfully requested that the policy wording makes clear that specific parameters – such as the precise extent of tree planting, the design of boundary treatments, and the configuration of buffers – will be determined through the landscape sensitivity assessment and other technical work required by the policy, rather than being fixed at the allocation stage.

This would ensure the policy provides the appropriate framework for high-quality design without unnecessarily prejudging outcomes that can only properly be established through detailed technical work.

Green Infrastructure Quantum and Layout

Issue

The policy allocates “some 2ha of Green Infrastructure” and sets out specific requirements for tree planting and open space in both the southern and northern fields. Whilst the commitment to providing meaningful green infrastructure is fully supported, the prescriptive delineation of Green Infrastructure arrangements across both fields at this stage may constrain the ability to optimise the overall scheme through detailed design, and could inadvertently reduce the buildable area below what the landscape evidence ultimately justifies.

Recommended Modification

It is recommended that the policy retains the requirement for an appropriate and policy-compliant quantum of Green Infrastructure, but that the detailed layout, extent and precise configuration of green infrastructure provision – including specific tree planting locations, buffer zones and open space arrangements – be determined at the planning application stage, informed by:

• The landscape sensitivity assessment required by the policy;
• An ecological survey and habitat assessment, including assessment of the pond and its buffer;
• A heritage impact assessment in relation to the setting of the Grade II listed public house to the east;
• Detailed design and masterplanning work.

This approach would better reflect the NPPF’s requirement that allocated site policies provide sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and technical findings, while still clearly establishing the Council’s expectations for high-quality green infrastructure delivery.

Access Arrangements

Issue

Policy TC1 requires vehicular and pedestrian access onto Field Rise “to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority,” and also includes requirements for a Transport Assessment and an off-site pedestrian and cycle path towards Tinkers Lane. These requirements are broadly accepted.

However, the policy wording for the pedestrian and cycle link to Tinkers Lane does not carry forward the important land availability caveat that is explicitly acknowledged in the supporting text, which states that the path would be “subject to land being available.”

Recommended Modification

It is requested that criterion (ix) of the policy is amended to reflect the land availability caveat:

Current wording: “Include a new pedestrian and cycle path leading from Field Rise northwards through the site, and providing for a link beyond the northeastern boundary towards Tinkers Lane.”

Suggested wording: “Include a new pedestrian and cycle path leading from Field Rise northwards through the site, and providing for a connection beyond the northeastern boundary towards Tinkers Lane, subject to the availability of land and the agreement of the relevant landowners.”
This modification would ensure the policy requirement is reasonable, proportionate and deliverable, consistent with the NPPF’s tests of soundness.

Affordable Housing

Policy TC1 requires the provision of a policy-compliant amount of on-site affordable housing in line with Policy HOU2 of the Rother Local Plan. This requirement is noted. The landowner is committed in principle to the delivery of affordable housing on the site.

It is, however, requested that the policy makes clear that the precise tenure split, mix and delivery mechanism for affordable housing will be agreed at the planning application stage through an open-book viability assessment where required, in line with national planning policy and the NPPF’s guidance on viability. Given the significant on-site obligations proposed – including substantial green infrastructure, access improvements, landscape mitigation and the demolition of existing farm buildings – it is important that the policy does not foreclose the ability to test viability at the application stage if necessary.

Soundness

The Rother Local Plan is required to be submitted for examination by December 2026. In the context of a Local Housing Need of 912 dwellings per annum and an identified supply of only 495 dwellings per annum – a shortfall of over 45% – the soundness of the plan will depend in significant part on demonstrating that allocated sites are genuinely deliverable and that their policies are not unnecessarily restrictive.

Subject to the modifications requested in these representations, it is considered that Policy TC1 would be:

• Positively prepared – the allocation makes a meaningful contribution to Rother’s housing supply at a time of acute district-wide shortfall. The HELAA Background Paper confirms that Ticehurst has seen a net loss of dwellings through small-site development over the past decade, making Site TC1 the primary vehicle for growth in the village;
• Justified – the site has been identified through a robust and comprehensive HELAA process and has been specifically reconsidered and maintained through the summer 2025 HELAA review, which focused on maximising deliverable supply within the HWNL;
• Effective – with the requested modifications, the policy would provide a deliverable and flexible framework for development, capable of responding to the findings of technical assessments without requiring a formal departure from the allocation;
• Consistent with national policy – the allocation and its policy requirements, as modified, would be consistent with the NPPF (December 2024), including policies on housing delivery, National Landscape protection, biodiversity net gain, efficient use of land and design quality. The NPPF (paragraph 130) specifically requires that planning policies avoid homes being built at low densities where there is a housing land shortfall, and the policy should not therefore cap density at the lower end of the applicable range.

Summary of Requested Modifications

The following modifications to Policy TC1 and its supporting text are requested:

• Amend supporting text to confirm that the figure of ‘some 54 dwellings’, the density of 30 dph, and the indicative built area of 1.8 hectares are genuinely indicative and do not constitute fixed parameters or a ceiling. The applicable density range for village sites is 25–45 dph (average 35 dph) as established in the HELAA evidence base, and precise quantum will be determined at application stage.
• Amend the policy to confirm that the detailed layout and configuration of Green Infrastructure – including tree planting locations, buffer extents and open space arrangements – will be determined at application stage, informed by the landscape sensitivity assessment, ecological surveys, heritage impact assessment and masterplanning work.
• Remove the reference to ‘low-rise dwellings’ in the supporting text for the southern field and replace with wording that defers the question of appropriate scale, height and massing to the landscape sensitivity assessment required by the policy, to be determined having regard to topography, local character and the setting of the adjacent listed public house.
• Amend criterion (ix) to include the caveat that the off-site pedestrian and cycle connection towards Tinkers Lane is subject to land availability and landowner agreement, consistent with the supporting text.
• Add clarifying text to confirm that specific landscape and design parameters will be determined through the required technical assessments at application stage rather than being fixed by the allocation.
• Confirm in the policy that the affordable housing tenure, mix and mechanism will be agreed at application stage and that viability testing will be available where the cumulative obligations of the policy require it.

Should you have any questions regarding our representations, please do not hesitate to get in contact with ourselves or the landowner.