Residents in Fairlight have been telling Rye News about disruption to their daily lives from inconsiderate builders on a new housing development in the village. Blaring PA systems, unannounced road closures, blocked driveways and mud spillages have all been reported since work began in 2022.
A year overdue, the 16 houses at the former Market Garden site on Lower Waites Lane are finally nearing completion. Now questions are being asked about how far the properties “as built” have strayed from the original planning permission granted by the planning inspector on appeal. Residents are hoping the issue will be raised next week at Rother District Council’s planning committee meeting.
A lobby group calling themselves Village People have carried out three resident surveys, describing the construction management plan and planning conditions as “works of fiction.” They say RDC has yet to measure the sloped ground levels, but the council states the new homes are “within acceptable tolerances”.
Residents claim some of the new homes are two feet higher in their finished floor levels than approved, with rear gardens several feet shorter than approved. Amenities approved by the planning inspector, including a pedestrian footpath, have been erased from the construction site drawings in use.
Having refused to accept there were any breaches of planning permission, RDC conceded there are “discrepancies” in November 2024 following formal complaints and supporting photos and videos. A drainage report on the planning portal noted an additional 120 square metres of unauthorised hard landscaping. Queries about missing retaining walls are ongoing.
One resident alleges the tree preservation order on their ancient oak tree has been ignored, its limbs cut and the roots damaged. Residents also allege guttering on the new homes has not had any down pipes for a year, causing brickwork to be permanently damp.
Portable cabins, HGVs and inappropriately stored building materials on recently laid earth caused a 50ft landslip says Village People.
East Sussex County Council have repeatedly taken action against the developer to remove an unauthorised culvert in the stream and an unauthorised French drain running the length of the eastern boundary. Their flood management team have objected to recent planning applications to fix the stream bank erosion problem, insisting on an engineer’s report and a schedule of works.
Natural hedges that played a key role as part of flood defences and ran along the stream and the lane have been cut down. The soft green boundaries have been replaced with a high close boarded fence.
MP Helena Dollimore has visited the site and joined residents in their call for an independent survey by a reputable professional. In a strongly worded letter to Lorna Ford, the chief executive of RDC, she says she is disappointed and saddened by apparent planning contraventions. “Contractors are clearly ignoring residents and local authorities, leading to serious and contentious issues.”
A spokesperson for Rother District Council said they were aware of neighbours’ concerns in Fairlight. “The development was given planning permission by the planning inspectorate and we have made regular site visits to check that the dwellings are being built in accordance with the approved plans. We will continue to monitor the site until the development is finished.”
Developer GemSelect has been approached for comment. The Battle-based firm gives details about the housing plans on its website. “This development will provide 16 dwellings and offers a variety of housing types from two to four bedroom homes which makes an efficient use of a difficult and constrained site. The design recognises and takes account of the particular characteristics of the site and area and all the properties will have parking and well planned landscaped gardens.”
Image Credits: Rye News library , Rye News Team .
The now named duck house no12 on the plans 3 metres from the stream ,in reality 22 inches ,my only hope who ever buys these expensive poor quality homes has a very good independent solicitor.
My property is in the Lane and faces directly opposite this truly awful development. I was firmly advised by the previous site manager that the trees and shrubs along the stream bankwhich gave my property at the very least privacy and a “blackout ” of the huge volume of light that will emminate from these 16 huge properties, would remain. 6 months later under a new site manager(original one resigned because of stress) all the trees and shrubbery torn down..Now we have glaring lights streaming into our properties and this is before they are sold,plus ican see into their rooms from my driveway and my neighbour feels she has to keep her curtains drawn at the front of her house because builders can see straight 8nto her bedroom.
Why on earth hasn’t an independent site survey taken place? The “Village People” have done a great job of documenting safety concerns and building regs issues (and there is quite some building expertise within the group) but no one has done anything.
At least two houses have their ground floor and patio area raised so high it towers over the 6ft garden fence directly into kitchen,shower and lounge, completely ripping any privacy in the garden. There is no way that abides to planning. The distress that has caused my mum is disgusting. Cars will tower over the garden fence pointing into the whole garden and living space. We just feel so helpless. Absolutely zero consideration from the developers. Even if the patio and ground floor were low enough to not tower right over ours and neighbours house would have been bearable.
The whole site needs a survey to find all the faults with this development and let me tell you there are lots of faults. Heights of houses 2m too high. Shrubsand trees removed from LW.L.The stream bank needs to be sorted or it will collapse into the stream. No public footpath. Not enough parking facilities that will definitely affect where l live.The council needs to make the developer correct these faults before they are sold.
This site raises many questions. Totally unsuitable to village area and standards. Councils excuses that the changes are minor to what was
Passed is not correct. The changes have had a huge impact on residents lives. Deprived of amenities and privacy which apparently Rother take very seriousely!!!!!!
Rules regarding privacy and keping fauna have been completely ignored and passed regarding this site and that this is minimal is incorrect.
The changes have impacted lives considerably re amenities and especially privacy issues. There are many more issues affecting health and trust .
Restrictions and monitoring of residents houses regarding build were totally ignored with this unsightly site .
I’m so glad to see some strong activities from local residents, regarding the disgraceful lack of rules and boundaries from the building company and developers. Too many of these get away with ‘sneaking’ adjustments – for the worse – into the plans. Greed and total lack of respect for those who live here. Power to the Village People.
Previously built homes have had to have windows not facing each other for privacy but these have been built facing into the older homes near them. The draining of water is a huge concern and the fact the land was built up so massively is very strange indeed. The houses are also so closely built-blocking light and sky to neighbouring houses is also surely not good practice? So many questions to answer! Thank you thank you thank you Village People for caring and asking these questions. Let’s hope they listen!
The recent housing development in Fairlight has caused immeasurable damage to the residents who own properties adjacent to the site. Not only are the new houses considerably higher than the original specifications laid down, but the ground upon which they lie has been raised in places.
A great measure of privacy has been lost as many of the new properties tower over the existing houses and gardens so that the new owners will be able to look straight into their neighbours’ houses and gardens.
Trees have been felled along the edge of the new site so that gardens no longer enjoy the privacy previously known.
It is regrettably clear that all concerned and in particular the developers ,planners and builders have shown a considerable lack of concern for the lives of existing Fairlight residents and indeed a cavalier attitude to the terms and conditions of standard building practices.
Can we now hope that some care and concern be given to the residents whose lives have been so adversely affected by thoughtless and inconsiderate building practices? A degree of compensation; and perhaps an effort to plant hedges and place fences where privacy has been lost; some consideration by all concerned given to how best to repair some of the physical, financial and emotional damage caused by the development of the Garden Site. Some evidence of concern would be welcomed by one and all.
I’m quite perplexed just how narrow minded and bigoted people can be THERE IS A HOUSING CRiSiS this development is up to housing standards I very much doubt people complaining have their properties up to standard or have ‘just dropped ‘ their kerbs without permission to park their cars or just popped a room in their lofts without building control being involved ……. This Witch Hunt of a respected local developer is disgusting , if these people had half a brain they would know that Gemselct have built thousands of houses throughout Hastings and Rother work alongside housing associations and always provided mixed units within their schemes to provide affordable new housing and in most of their developments they retain stock to rent to local families…….. maybe just maybe rather than berating and being just very unkind and non inclusive of ‘NEW’ unknown people daring to set up home in their village ……. Just another case of …. Not in our back yard ! If this development was one six bedroom house with two retired people in you’ d be happy but not sixteen families with young children . I think you all should be ashamed of yourselves and maybe take up bird watching as a hobby instead of heading up a smear campaign to twart prospective purchasers .If I was the developer I’d sell the lot to a London housing association who are actively buying up stock for their overflowing homeless crisis …. One last thing are any of these people RICS registered / work as Building control offices had building or planning experience…. I doubt it !
My partner and I went to look at the above site yesterday as we had seen the houses advertised and thought we might be interested in buying one. We were shocked to see the quality of the build. The larger homes at the end of the sight seem to be built on unsupported ground and even to an untrained eye seem to be in danger of subsidence. Other homes also look to be built ridiculously close to a watercourse. We will definitely not be buying one!
I feel genuinely very sad about this development of huge houses in the centre of a pretty area consisting of mainly bungalows and very narrow natural lanes .It is extrememy over bearing. Yes houses may be needed but they should built in a considerate and appealing way which suited the area im sure that no one would be complaining and upset if this were the case. The whole feel of the area has changed, its horrible to see the bland souless creations with hard landscaping that have slowly been created and made existing residents lives a misery, ruining many aspects of their property which were once loved and enjoyed , will never understand how any of this has been allowed to happen.
Not only has the extremely inconsiderate building process been a distressing part of residents daily lives, the fact that what you can see plainly, is simply not in keeping with the original village.
A once beautiful view up on the hill is now spattered with the unsightly new estate, high up above all other homes, this type should never have been passed.
The traffic has increased over the years with the increase in home deliveries, add cars to the sixteen new houses and all their deliveries, on small lanes with few pedestrian pathways…it’ll be gridlock.
Not to the mention the already horrendous sewage issues during construction – where is the drainage for all these houses?- neighbouring gardens have already been flooded and remain sodden since all the trees and foliage have been stripped from the market garden site. And the obvious hacking off of major branches of the TPO Oak tree looks awful, and was so unnecessary. There are far better ways to address our Countries housing crisis and this is clearly not one of them. Sadly what’s being left behind against this village, will cost the village long term, causing more issues than it allegedly solves.
I would like to know what RDC mean by “within acceptable tolerances.” Exactly what are these tolerances? Maybe RDC are happy to share this information.
On a lighter note and out of sheer curiosity, of the Fairlight residents calling themselves The Village People, who wears the native Indian headdress, and do they take bookings for birthdays, weddings and Bar Mitzvah’s?
If Rother has been regularly checking the site, why have “acceptable tolerances” and “discrepancies” occurred? These are slippery slopes. If Rother does not hold the developer to account then they, and other developers, will continue to ignore plans and residents’ concerns and build what and where they like. That’s why Village People are holding Rother to account and calling for an independent site survey. There also needs to be an inquiry into why the development was allowed to compromise the privacy of neighbouring properties, and the stability of the stream bank.
I have been very dismayed by the over zealous clearing of the site, every tree ,bush area of grass was removed and I’m sure those left will disappear
The boundaries now consist of over bearing chestnut panel fencing which will eventually obscure any oversight of the brook at the lower end of the site.
The plans did show landscaping ,trees bushes etc which are decidedly absent. The present of such ensured drainage as the vegetation took up the water , also many springs were present on the site and wildlife.
Question does ” Rother” address environmental concerns they must have policies in place ?
I am not a “nimby” as I knew this development would take place when I bought my adjacent property.
I understood that as Rother rejected the development as being unsuitable for the area and putting a strain on the local infrastructure, they would initiate stringent building controls, but instead they have been woefully negligent in keeping any controls within the site.
There has been over a hundred building infringements so far, with a total lack of respect for other people’s property and their quality of life, along with unannounced road closures, uncontrollable contractors, lack of Health & Safety, loud site radios etc.
Add this to GemSelect’s disregard to its own planning conditions that allowed the build to go ahead, such as the six Low Cost Housing was withdrawn and now at full cost, non existent footpaths, extended raised trellis, houses built in the wrong places, ground levels to high, all built according to GemSelect’s plans and not those that were passed by Rother, nor are the plans submitted bare any relation to the actual size of the plot. This is obviously factual as you can see the lack of garden lengths and proximity to existing properties, lanes and the all important stream which acts as a surge rain and sewage overflow .
It is now beyond belief that this site that has been out of control from the beginning, is on the market for sale when there are so many issues, even safety unresolved.
As for the future occupants, I have not heard anyone speak any hostility towards them, just that they should have a good lawyer, I wish them all the best, good luck!!
I call on Lorna Ford to live up to her promise of getting the site fully surveyed, heights etc and to be fully transparent as to why Rother has failed miserably in controlling Market Garden.
The misery this construction has caused around the still ongoing site was and is totally unacceptable. Under control and house design that reflect the Village was all surrounding residents wanted.
No doubt my comments will be dismissed, as well as any official complaints, hopefully lessons will be learned from this build.
Was interested to see Elaine wrights entry, suggesting that everybody that objects to the market garden site are Nimby’s who hate new people. I don’t see those houses as being particularly affordable and it is not clear who they were actually built for? It could have been a really nice development. Hardly a great place for a family or couple in the practical sense as these houses have meaningless green space and minimum parking. Absolutely brilliant if you have no friends, family or carers. I feel sorry for the people that end up there as this lack of realistic living space will just cause plenty of arguments for the people that do end buying/renting these houses let alone anything that might have been said by anyone in the village. We moved from our previous house because parking had become an issue to all the residents and we had four times more outside space available than the poor future residents of market gardens.
What a sorry state this site is in. If Rother had monitored properly this would not have happened. Even Gemselect have not adhered to their own plans.
One of the main points is the height of these houses, way taller than any plans.
An independent measurement of these houses is urgently needed now. The whole site has been built up, much of the ground is unstable due this, and there has already been a land slip. Again much of this could have been avoided if most of the vegetation on the site had not been ripped out. The gardens of the houses along LWL are very steep to the stream and are already eroding. This is very dangerous for children and adults alike.
There is so much wrong with this site. This is not Nimbyism, but a genuine concern for people that might buy these houses. Who protects them.
I walked past these houses yesterday and it looked a lovely development in a beautiful part of the country. Anybody will be really lucky to live here.
On 14.03.25 the new Head of Planning at Rother has clarified “At the March 2018 Rother Planning Committee meeting, it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a S106 Planning Obligation to secure affordable housing, off site road improvements and reptile relocation. Whilst negotiations on the Planning Obligation were taking place, the applicant submitted viability evidence explaining affordable housing could not be provided. This was reported back to the Planning Committee in July 2020 where it was resolved to refuse planning permission. However the developer appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who permitted the development.” So Rother Planning Committee did originally approve the site access route and the plans. Also, no one so far has mentioned money. As I understand it, one of the financial considerations included GemSelect Ltd paying Rother in total £282,917.00 for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This pot is divided as £14,145.86 retained by Rother as an admin fee. £226,333.83 Strategic CIL Fund and £42,437.00 to Fairlight Parish Council. The Market Garden Development is a Pandora’s box. Thank you very much to Rye News for publishing and helping Village People in our aim to uncover the truth.
I really can’t see what all the fuss is about. The houses look very attactive and look exactly like the drawings on the rother planning portal. They don’t appear to to be any higher than the neighbouring properties in Fairlight Gardens. My garden at home is overlooked by 4 and 5 storey buildings in every direction and it’s just not an issue.
This article is also misleading. For instance the picture of the landslip is quite clearly an excavation which has been concreted and spray painted ready for the retaining wall to be built.
I also doubt the builders had PA systems, more like site radios I suspect.
Whether they used PAs or site radios, Environmental Health agreed the radio music was excessively loud and was causing a nuisance. They wrote to the developer twice reminding them of their duty not to cause a nuisance to local residents. Sadly the developer ignored this and the site manager said he was unable to control the behaviour of contractors on site.
If the noise was that bad since 2022 and the developer ignored the letters, why wasn’t sound monitoring equipment put in place by environmental health and enforcement action taken?
My understanding is the photo has been labelled landslip to make it as neutral as possible. It was submitted with photo evidence as an issue to East Sussex County Council and Rother on 21.10.23 as ‘Bank Slip Over Stream Sett’. The Developers had a licence for the work and an Ecologist confirmed in writing the Stream Sett was ‘vacated’. Remedial repair works were inspected by ESCC. The second bank slip to the stream was under the scaffolding to the south of Planning Plot 12, logged on 03.03.24. This is now the subject of Planning Application RR/2024/997/P ESCC Flood & Drainage Officers have been diligent, caring and validated residents concerns throughout.
I do get the impression that this article along with most of the comments have been grossly exaggerated.
Perhaps you could explain your reasons for reaching this conclusion, including qualifications (if any).
Without an apology, some acceptance of maladministration, nor an independent site survey from Rother, our next step is to try the Ombudsman. The ‘missing’ site footpath must be built, for the pedestrian safety of children, elders and people with disabilities. The stream hedge that was chainsawed along Lower Waites Lane must be replaced. The Market Garden Estate is a white elephant. It does not address local housing need, nor is it affordable. There are 29 village properties for sale in this price range, with gardens and generous parking. Village People amplify the distressed voices of residents in the face of indifference from the Developer and many Local Authorities. Our short video, ‘Uncovering The Truth’, is on YouTube, with links below to the sound recording of our last public meeting and results of resident surveys.
NOTE: link to YouTube video
https://youtu.be/thF6Pj4yq-s?si=pG1YF6utpwv9U5J8