One holiday lodge at Downash Wood Treehouses, Ticehurst

What was proposed

The application proposed one additional single-storey timber lodge for holiday accommodation, with native planting to its west.

“The application proposes the erection of one additional lodge for use as holiday accommodation. Following amendments to the initial proposal the lodge would be single storey and of timber construction.”

“The application proposes one additional single storey lodge to provide holiday accommodation within the existing holiday site. The additional planting of native species is also proposed to the west of the lodge.”

Officer report

The site

The existing holiday site has six approved accommodation units, an access track and parking, and slopes towards Bewl Water within the countryside and High Weald National Landscape.

“The application site provides holiday let accommodation where six units of accommodation have been granted approval under previous applications. It is served by an existing track and car parking area and is accessed via Tinkers Lane. The site slopes downwards from its southern boundary towards Bewl Water to the north. The application relates to an area of trees and shrubs to the northeast of the site. The site is located within the countryside and within the HWNL.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Earlier applications allowed three lodges on appeal, three additional lodges with related works, and an alternative cabin siting and design.

“RR/2015/1797/P Proposed construction of three individual lodges to create bespoke holiday facility. REFUSED, APPEAL ALLOWED”

“RR/2020/985/P Change of Use of land to enable three additional lodges. Alternative design to cabin permitted under APP/U1430/W/15/3135572. Retention of hut for maintenance equipment, realignment of construction /maintenance / emergency track, minor extension to car park. (Part retrospective). APPROVED CONDITIONAL”

Officer report

What people said

One supporter backed the business and local economy, while eight objectors and the parish council raised concerns about development, lighting, wildlife, the shoreline and landscape.

“One letter of support summarised: • Proposal would be an extension of an existing business. • Site offers a unique and alternative accommodation in nature. • The site has grown without impact on natural beauty of privacy of guests. • Additional cabin would be popular with guests. • Would expand a sustainable and rewarding business. • Proposal supports popularity of ‘staycations. • More unique low-impact accommodation needed. • Benefit to local economy.”

“Comment received 25/04/25: Ticehurst Parish Council object to the application highlighted above. Ticehurst's made Neighbourhood Plan clearly states in Policy R1 4.14 'as the largest green space in the parish, Bewl Water and its surrounding land are of major importance. It has protection under Rother Local Plan Core Strategy Policy RA2'.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the parish council, residents opposing the proposal, the applicant, two councillors and a county councillor.

What members debated

Members discussed overdevelopment, uniqueness, lighting, the shoreline, landscape and wildlife harm, the lodge’s design, permanence and possible planning creep.

“Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues and commented as follows: the application was described as “unique”, plenty of glamping and camping facilities were available in the area, what was unique / special about this one?; overdevelopment; light pollution and protecting the dark skies; close proximity to the shoreline of BW; potential damage to the character and appearance of the landscape; destruction of a natural asset; harm to bird and wildlife;…”

“Members were reminded that each application should be considered on its own merits and under current policy. Officers confirmed that permanent structure concerns would be dealt with under the conditions (Condition 8), which required the removal of any building upon cessation of its use for holiday purposes.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because it considered the site overdeveloped, the design poor, and the proposal harmful to the countryside and High Weald landscape.

“Councillor Mrs Barnes moved the motion to REFUSE (Full Planning Permission) and this was seconded by Councillor Grohne, for the following reasons, namely the application represented overdevelopment of the site, would cause harm to the countryside, would be of poor design and fail to conserve and enhance and would have an adverse impact on the HWNL contrary to Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, and Policy R1 of the Ticehurst…”

“The proposed development, would represent an overdevelopment of this open countryside site and by reason of its siting and poor design would result in harm to the countryside and fail to conserve or enhance the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape by introducing permanent development to the shore line of Bewl Water, contrary to Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan and Policy R1 and paragraph…”

Minutes

The vote

The refusal motion was carried by six votes to three.

“The motion was declared CARRIED (6 for / 3 against).”

Minutes