Self-build replacement dwelling at Matellows Cottage, Rushlake Green

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling, part of the garage and three sheds, then building a self-build dwelling and replacement garage.

“Executive Summary This application seeks approval for a replacement dwelling. Although the scheme has attracted a number of letters of support as the well as the support of the local parish council, it is not considered that the proposed scheme complies with policy for the reasons set out below. It should also be remembered that a degree of popular support for an application is not a material consideration in itself.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a single-storey dwelling and numerous outbuildings in a large plot outside a development boundary within the High Weald National Landscape.

“Site and Surroundings The application site is located on the eastern side of Middle Lane in a rural area near the settlement of Rushlake Green. The site comprises a single storey detached dwelling with numerous incidental outbuildings around it. The dwelling sits within a large plot. Site Constraints The application site is subject to the following constraints: • Located outside a defined development boundary. • Located in the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL).”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications established lawful residential use and curtilage, while a larger replacement dwelling was refused and dismissed on appeal in 2025.

“Figure 1 - The red line site area for WD/2023/0136/LDE showing the area in lawful use as a dwelling PE/2024/0075/E – Pre-application advice was given on a proposal to replace the existing dwelling with a larger 1.5-storey dwelling. The advice concentrated on the concerns around the size and design of the replacement dwelling for what is currently a very modest dwelling.”

“Figure 2 - The red line site area for WD/2024/0791/F showing the lawful residential curtilage for the dwelling previously found to be lawful under WD/2023/0136/LDE WD/2024/2786/LDE – This application concluded on the balance of probability that a number of outbuildings on the site had been present for more than four years and were therefore immune from enforcement action.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended refusal because the replacement would be substantially larger than the existing cottage, poorly matched to nearby cottages and harmful to the landscape.

“Whilst the loss of the existing cottage would not result in the loss of a property of valuable local character, it is not considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would comply with the other requirements of Saved Policy DC18.”

“Whilst the existing dwelling is utilitarian in design and of very little architectural merit, the replacement dwelling is considered to be overly large with an excessive amount of glazing and not in-keeping with the modest and historic terraced cottages to the south, which contribute positively to the characteristics of the High Weald.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council supported the application, and eighteen support letters plus three public comments described the proposal as an improvement without harm to neighbours.

“Consultation Responses The following consultation responses and representations have been received. These responses are summarised. Full versions of the consultation responses and representations are available on the case file available on the Council’s website (link above). Statutory Consultees Warbleton Parish Council Supports – ‘It was resolved that the council supports this application.”

“The council also considered that the proposed dwelling would be more energy efficient.’ Representations Eighteen letters of support and three comments have been received from members of the public.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The chairman of Warbleton Parish Council and the applicant spoke in favour, and the local ward member also addressed the committee.

What members decided

Members found no harm under policies DC18, EN6 and EN27 and considered the design an enhancement, subject to controls on glazing and permitted development.

“RESOLVED: That Full planning permission be approved Contrary to officer recommendations for the reasons outlined below:”

“No harm identified with respect to saved policy DC18, EN6 and EN27. The proposed design is an enhancement versus the existing dwelling subject to controls through condition including details of glazing to reduce light spill and removal of permitted development rights.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to refuse in line with the officer recommendation failed, while four councillors voted for approval contrary to that recommendation and three abstained.

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Clark, seconded by Councillor Stephen Shing to refuse in line with officer recommendation. This motion was brought to the vote and failed.”

“Recorded Vote: Councillors Stephen Shing, Glynn White, Brian Redman and Alison Wilson voted for the motion to approve full planning permission, Contrary to officer recommendation.”

Minutes