Proposed redevelopment by Plutus Developments of the former Thomas Peacocke School site, Ferry Road, Rye. RR/2017/1778/P As amended 10.01.2019 Demolition of Queen Adelaide public house and erection of 65 residential dwellings comprising 38 houses and 27 flats with associated landscaping, car parking and other infrastructure.
The Society has objected to the revised plans to redevelop the former Thomas Peacocke School site.
The main objections are to the total lack of affordable housing which is required under the Rother Core Strategy and the Rye Neighbourhood Plan.
The second objection raises from the total elimination of the Natural England Priority Woodland and its wildlife due to the density and layout of the application and from the approach the developer has taken to the question of flood design.
The site is below the anticipated flood level by a depth of between 0.6 and 1.48 m and the developer has decided to get over this by artificially raising the site level by this amount. Given the site area this is likely to result in the need for some 28,000 cubic metres of fill which would need up to 2000 dumper truck journeys. All down Udimore Road and Wish Street and Ferry Road!
Although construction issues are not usually a planning matter in this case it is of such a magnitude as to cause concern and needs to be addressed by the applicant.
There are also concerns as to how the creation of this "island" above the flood level will impact on the surrounding area during flooding. In addition it would appear that the sewer capacity will require a new main from the site to the Rye Harbour Road treatment works. Again not a reason for refusal but an expense to be used as an argument on viability grounds that I believe the developer will try to run. ie 'Its so expensive to develop this site Rother must relax the planning constraints'
That is why in the penultimate paragraph I have set out the information on the design criteria that was available when the developer bought the site. If he paid too much that is his fault due to lack of due diligence.
The full reasons for our objection are set out in this document