Private artist’s studio at Owlscastle, Westfield, Hastings

What was proposed

The application proposed a standalone private artist’s studio on an existing concrete slab, with timber cladding, a metal roof, glazing and landscaping.

“The application seeks to erect a 'private artist’s studio' on the existing concrete slab.”

“The studio building would be of a rectangular form with a dual-pitched roof, comprising timber cladding and corrugated metal roofing. A door is proposed within the south elevation, glazed double doors within the west elevation and a window within the east elevation.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a concrete slab in a rural field outside a development boundary and within the High Weald National Landscape.

“The existing site comprises a concrete slab situated within a field to the east side of Cottage Lane, north of Westfield village. This slab is in place as a result of a previous permission RR/2000/274/P for the erection of a stable building. The site is within the same ownership as Owlscastle, a residential dwelling approximately 100m to the south.”

“The site is not within any development boundary and is within the HWNL.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A similar studio application was withdrawn, while an earlier stable building permission was approved conditionally and created the existing slab.

“RR/2025/1432/P Proposed domestic studio on existing concrete slab. WITHDRAWN”

“RR/2000/274/P Stable block containing facilities for a maximum of three horses and goats enclosure and access track. APPROVED CONDITIONAL”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers said the proposal was unrelated to agriculture or tourism and would harm the countryside and High Weald landscape through its isolated, domestic appearance and lighting.

“The application seeks to erect a ‘private artist’s studio’ within a rural field to the east of Cottage Lane, near Westfield. The application follows a previous application RR/2025/1432/P for a similar scheme which was withdrawn following officer’s advice.”

“The application site is located in the countryside and within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) where new development is restricted to that which requires a countryside location. In this case, the proposed building is unrelated to agriculture or tourism and therefore in conflict with the overarching strategy for the countryside to protect the landscape.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

The parish council raised concerns about landscape, lighting, policy, separate use and precedent; two public comments supported the proposal and reuse of the slab.

“Westfield Parish Council: Concerns raised regarding the impact of the proposal. Comments summarised as follows: • Appropriate landscaping for the High Weald. • External lighting and light spill need to be considered. • Diversification of built form and use within the curtilage. • Great weight must be given to conserving. • Stables were for equestrian use, different to this application. • Lack of clarity as to how proposal fits into policy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the applicant and a local ward member supporting the proposal, and considered the parish council’s comments.

What members discussed

Members discussed the earlier permission, landscape impact, the building’s use, access, dark skies, materials, screening, landscaping and the risk of a countryside precedent.

“Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues and commented as follows: previous application for a stable block and access track was approved in 2000, with the foundations to this laid and thus the permission was extant; impact on the HWNL; protection of the countryside; isolated location / distance of the concrete slab in relation to the residential curtilage (if nearer to the main dwelling the application might be acceptable); concern that the building…”

“8 Applicant’s intention to work from home using the building as a private artist’s studio and emphasised that it must not be converted into a domestic dwelling. Members agreed that the existing concrete slab was an eyesore and considered the scale and height of the proposal comparable to an approved agricultural building. It was also noted that there was an extant permission at the site for a similarly sized building.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors moved and seconded a motion to grant permission, which passed by seven votes to two.

“Subject to conditions controlling landscaping and protection of dark skies, the Planning Committee granted full planning permission contrary to the officer recommendation, with relevant planning conditions delegated to officers.”

“Councillor Gray moved the motion to GRANT (Full Planning Permission) and this was seconded by Councillor Grohne. The motion was declared CARRIED (7 for / 2 against).”

Minutes