On November 7 Rother District Council published on its planning website the officer’s report on the planning application for 63 houses on the former Thomas Peacocke site. The report was issued as Rother Planning Committee is scheduled to consider the application at its meeting on November 14.
The officer’s report recommends approval of the application even though this will result in a development without any affordable housing, an important policy requirement of both the Rother Core Strategy and the Rye Neighbourhood Plan. In addition the proposed layout will result in the virtual elimination of the woodland tree-belt that separates the site from the railway line. Rother considered this to be of both landscape and biodiversity importance when it approved the two earlier supermarket applications for the site. The omission of all the affordable housing requirement is justified on viability grounds. However the existence of such a viability report is referred to for the first time in the officer’s report of November 7 and has not been made public, as recommended on the Government Planning Portal.
Rye Conservation Society (RCS) has supported the use of this site for housing as part of the Rye Neighbourhood Plan and supports the specific policy H8 that covers development on the site. The Society does however object to the current application primarily on the grounds of lack of affordable housing and loss of green space. If the largest designated housing site in Rye cannot support affordable housing, where will it be provided, if at all?
Rye does not seem to be getting what it asked and voted for in the Neighbourhood Plan. So the Society decided to write setting out its objections one last time. Its letter of objection can be seen on the RCS website.
It turns out that any additional representations had to be made by 9am on Monday, November 11. This means that a response had to be provided within two working days of the officer’s report being made publicly available. The Society lodged its final objections at 2pm on Monday afternoon; we have since been informed that they cannot be considered. This represents two working days to consider and comment on a 22-page report, although the application has been with Rother since August 2017. Anyone of a cynical disposition might wonder whether publication of the officer’s report could have been timed to limit any potential further detailed objections and possible representation to councillors.
Rother will potentially gain £1m plus in Community Infrastructure Levy and New Homes Bonus in addition to a desultory £78,000 developer contribution toward affordable housing and 63 new homes, all at open-market prices, towards its five-year housing supply deficit.
By law none of the £1m can go towards affordable housing but will go into Rother’s diminished coffers.
What will Rye get?
Editor’s note: The answer to the question, “What will Rye get?” is almost certainly “very little” and probably nothing. This policy was confirmed by the then-chairman of Rother District Council, Paul Osborne in an interview with the editor three years ago. It is probable that the white elephant that is the De la Warr Pavilion is likely to see more of Rye’s money than Rye ever will. So far as RDC is concerned – with councillors from in and around Bexhill in the majority – this town is useful as a cash cow but otherwise, just a nuisance on the fringe of their territory.
Image Credits: Kenneth Bird .
Two days to comment!? What is happening to democracy on a local level? Is there no formal complaint procedure that can be made about Rother Council’s procédures and approach? We desperately need affordable housing and this was the most viable site for such housing in Rye. In addition, biodiversity clearly is of no interest to Rother Council as shown in their decision to grant the privately owned Rye Tennis Club permission to build indoor courts on a very bio diverse site next to the River Rother so this new decision is unsurprising but angering.
“It turns out that any additional representations had to be made by 9am on Monday, November 11. This means that a response had to be provided within two working days of the officer’s report being made publicly available. … This represents two working days to consider and comment on a 22-page report, although the application has been with Rother since August 2017.”
Time for a judicial review of RDC’s sharp practice on this matter?