Updated proposals for the development of the former Thomas Peacocke lower school site on Ferry Road have been put forward to planning by the developer, Plutus (Rye) Ltd, after the planning permission granted in 2020 expired.
Previous plans
The site has lain empty for many years with plans first proposed in 2016, initially for 77 new homes (48 houses and 29 apartments) and 90 parking places. After discussion on flood risk, the high density of the site, issues around drainage and prevention of water pollution, and the limitations of the access, revised plans were submitted in 2017 for 72 homes.
Planning was finally approved by Rother District Council (RDC) in 2020 with the reduced provision of 63 dwellings (all non-affordable) and the demolition of the Queen Adelaide pub to allow better access away from the railway crossing and exit for the fire station. Concerns were raised by the community about the impact of the raising of the level of the land by one metre, stipulated by RDC to mitigate flood risk, which was feared would increase traffic from trucks bringing the infill soil to the site. In addition, RDC supported local calls for maintaining a strip of vegetation along the boundary with the railway line, to preserve the habitat for birds, including turtle doves, and other wildlife. As a condition, Rother said the plans needed a “strengthening of the buffer planting at the railway boundary to provide improved habitat for nesting birds” as well as ‘”to provide suitable habitat for nesting birds, to enhance the appearance of the development and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the landscape setting and enhances the local landscape.” The RDC planning permission from 2020 can be viewed here.
Most recent plans
The latest plans, circulated via a colour leaflet to local people in December 2023, have proposed a mix of homes (all non-affordable): 15 custom built houses, 31 open sale houses and flats, and 42 residential care home flats for the elderly. This is in total an increase from the earlier plans of 63 dwellings to 88, more than the initial number (77) that had raised local concerns about the high density on this site.
Also included in the plans are 77 car parking spaces for the houses and 14 for the care home residents; electric vehicle charging points for every home; and cycle parking for every home. A small area of open space of wildflower grassland is included that will be open to the public and a ”5 metre buffer / wildlife corridor” at the railway boundary. Improvements will be made to the public footpath from Ferry Road to Tillingham Avenue and to the pavement on Ferry Road.
There is a need for more housing in the town, as there is across the country, however issues raised by some residents in the past are likely to remain: the lack of affordable housing in the proposals; the increased number of properties fitted into a small site; the thinning of the area of the trees and shrubs on the railway boundaries with the resulting disturbance to wildlife; and the possible disruption that the raising of the level of the site may cause.
The public can view the plans and make comment on the Plutus (Rye) Ltd website here.
For more information contact 0800 689 5209 or email info@ferryroadrye.co.uk.
Image Credits: Juliet Duff , Plutus (Rye) Limited .
Make the space another community garden
I agree.
It seems astonishing that the plan is for 88 houses and not a single one is affordable housing… Let alone social housing.
With plans first proposed by Pluto’s in 2016,its a disgrace that this eyesore of a site has lain barren ever since, time for Rother district council to pass the plans,with a time plan to develop,, or lose this site.
There is a housing shortage in this country!
We need houses!
Decent good houses!
Young people should be able to buy a house. They can’t.
BUILD ENOUGH HOUSES and they CAN!
All these small spaces all over the country could provide sufficient houses to enable people to get on the ‘ladder’. Right now all they can do is pay enormous rents. To wealthy people.
IT IS ALL WRONG!
There appear to be plenty of “second home” properties countrywide that become holiday lets. These stand empty during the winter months, turning many towns and villages into ghost towns. Quadrupling Council Tax on these could have the benefit of either bringing in extra income for cash strapped Councils, or alternatively making them so unprofitable for greedy landlords who might then feel obliged to put them back on the market to the benefit of local families.
✅ right on!
Not only that – these AirB&Bs change residential culture and community spirit. Where neighbours are known and look out for each other.
There are a number of key issues here. First, why is there no affordable housing component proposed? The only reason is that the developer reportedly claimed earlier it couldn’t make a profit if it had to provide a small number of affordable homes. I believe this to be incorrect. RDC needs to insist that affordable homes are in the mix, and adhere to its own Core Strategy policies. Second, why has the developer Plutus (Rye) now been allowed to propose 88 homes when they were earlier only given permission for 63? This proposal should be rejected and only 63 homes allowed. With 88 homes proposed, there will be mass overdevelopment on this site, with buildings squeezed together — purely to maximise the developer’s profit. One can see the high housing density from the diagram. The proposed custom-build properties are particularly close to each other.
Apart from the increased housing density – a case of the developer trying it on with the planners – the main change to the plan is the retirement flats proposal. This is a cunning way to ‘smuggle in’ a greater number of homes, increasing profit, by claiming that a demand for retirement homes is being met. It appears these retirement homes will be sold at market rate, currently averaging around the £343k mark for a one-bedroom flat in the south east. My view is that overall the developers will quite easily double their initial outlay with a development of this size, given market home prices and the fact that these homes will attract a premium.
Also, why is there only a 5-metre buffer/wildlife corridor proposed beside the railway line? This should be at least 10 metres in order to provide an adequate habitat for wildlife and birds and to act as screening. I ask RDC to reject this new proposal out of hand.
Plutus (Rye) is listed as a company involved in ‘buying and selling of own real estate’. The Harrow based firm’s financial statements for the year ended June 2022 revealed that its net liabilities exceeded net assets, with creditors (amounts falling due within one year) amounting to more than £5.5M. The figure for the previous year showed creditors of almost £7M and debtors of £1.9M. The directors said the company had sufficient assets to meet its liabilities and sufficient support from its creditors — particularly the parent company which is owed money from Plutus and ‘has agreed not to seek repayment in the short term’. It is unclear what Plutus originally paid for the school site, but the liabilities figure may give some indication. I strongly urge RDC to obey its own rules and oblige the developer to include affordable homes, and to reduce the number of homes to the agreed figure of 63, to avoid overdevelopment of this site. I have no problem with the need to heighten the land. I support homes being built on the site, but not the proposed amount of homes.
It appears that a new planning application has not yet been lodged with RDC, as none is available on its website (as far as I can see). The information released by Plutus is therefore a sort of ‘testing of the water’ to see how much it can get away with, in the hope that local residents won’t kick up too much of a fuss. It gives it the ability to claim it’s ‘consulted’ residents. Residents of Rye should, however, really make sure they lodge their comments (for or against) to RDC when the actual planning application sees the light of day.
This ‘affordable houses’ issue – what does it mean?! It’s superfluous.
Build houses plenty of them. Good houses fit for the 21st century. Then everyone can afford to buy a house.
It’s called ‘SUPPLY AND DEMAND’!
The issue of affordable houses is not ‘superfluous’. Not everyone is in, I dare say, a fortunate position of wealth and privilege. If one is a lower paid key worker, like a junior nurse, care worker or delivery driver, how can one afford to buy a home in the community one works in? One can’t: one is trapped in the rental market and forced to pay whatever elevated rent the landlord demands. The planning arena is more complex than simply “build a load of houses and once we have more than needed, house prices will fall”. It doesn’t work like that, especially with unbridled population growth and unprecedented immigration into the UK. You also have to select where to build, as I’m sure you wouldn’t like a developer building on the orchard behind your house and shoving in an access road beside it. We don’t want housing estates on AONBs, parks, flood plains or sensitive environments, etc. In fact, if you look at Rye, you’ll find that there is a surplus of bedrooms, but these are in expensive larger homes occupied by retired couples or single elderly people. What is needed are small one-bedroom homes into which pensioners can downsize, and affordable two-bedroom units for younger couples. This would free up the larger existing homes for families. You cannot leave the housing market entirely to commercial developers, because they will always seek to maximise profit — which invariably means high density estates, very large houses and little room for green spaces. The fact that the old school site developer is seeking to squeeze in 88 homes (instead of the 63 previously approved) proves the point.
Whatever you build please, please, please try and make them a bit more interesting than the dreadful developments I see from the train on my way to Rye from Ashford, via the rapidly expanding Ham Street: endless red brick mundanity …
All housing has to be fit for the 21st century!
There is a cost. How much is an ‘affordable’ house? What standard is it?
This word ‘affordable’ is a myth. It does not exist. It prevents houses being built. Ample supply of houses reduces the price. It’s called SUPPLY AND DEMAND!