Having lain dormant for some time now, many have noticed the recent activity on the site of the former Thomas Peacocke School site where contractors have been felling trees and clearing vegetation.
One local resident, Dominic Manning has sent the attached detailed letter (18/7/2023) and photographs to the head of development management at Rother District Council, voicing his concerns, a view shared by many locals. It reads:
18/7/2023
Kemi Erifevieme
Head of Development Management
Rother District Council
Town Hall
London Road
Bexhill-on-Sea
TN39 3JX
Re: Former Thomas Peacocke School Site, Ferry Road TN31 7DJ
Application ref: RR/2017/1778/P, dated 23.12.2020
Dear Ms Erifevieme
It has come to my attention that tree felling has been -and still is – taking place at the above site since the beginning of the week before last. It is estimated that at the very least 100 trees of different sizes and species have been felled. For the most part, these are willow trees and buddleia shrubs to the area marked in red to the plan below.
Hawthorn and elm trees, amongst others, have been felled within the TPO area, marked in blue. Most of the trees felled were more than 10 years old and more than 10 metres high.
It is known that chiffchaffs and blackcaps have been nesting within the application site area, as well as tits, robins, starlings, blackbirds, wood pigeon, dunnock, wrens, goldfinches, greenfinches, chaffinches and nightingales. The list is not comprehensive.
The site where the trees have been felled is known to be a foraging ground for turtle doves, which are the most endangered bird in the UK. A petition launched in 2020 collected more than 10,000 signatures, calling for Rye Station Woods to be saved. This is the last known nesting site for turtle doves in Rye.
The work being carried out is in breach of condition 15, which states:
“No development, approved by this planning permission, including any vegetation clearance, shall commence until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan relating to all existing trees and hedgerows on the site has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The AMS shall set out a phased clearance approach, particularly in relation to the existing tree belt and thicket where migratory species are known to nest.
“The AMS must set out how it will be gradually cleared, how unnecessary clearance will be avoided to retain the habitat and how areas of vegetation and trees to be retained will be marked out using pegs or fencing. The AMS shall provide a timetable for this clearance and ensure that this prevents any clearance works or other disturbance of any vegetation between 1 March and 31 July. It shall also provide the details of the appointed Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW).
“The Tree Protection Plan shall include details for the protection of all trees to be retained on the site. The approved scheme shall be put in place prior to the commencement of any development, apart from site clearance, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.
“The approved Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
“Reason: To ensure that the proposed development prevents the disturbance of all vegetation on the site between 1 March and 31 July, when nesting birds maybe present, prevents the unnecessary removal of habitat and does not prejudice the landscape setting and enhances the local landscape in accordance with Policies OSS4 (iii), EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.”
As you are aware, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (section 1), it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Planning consent for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this act.
Trees and scrub are likely to contain nesting birds between 01 March and 31 August inclusive. Trees and scrub are also present adjacent to the areas being cleared and are to be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates, unless a recent survey has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site during this period and has shown it is absolutely certain that nesting birds are not present. Even the removal of one nest can attract an unlimited fine and a prison sentence.
Condition 15 has been irretrievably breached – the trees cannot be unfelled and any bird eggs directly or indirectly affected will never hatch. On this basis, it is now the duty of the planning authority to advise the owners of the site that the planning approval is null and void. No fine can resolve this loss. A temporary stop notice must be served on the owner without delay, to avoid further ecological damage and loss.
I have been told that the site owners, Plutus Rye Ltd, state that the work carried out constitutes ‘maintenance’. By no stretch of the imagination is this correct. How old does a tree need to be before its removal is no longer deemed ‘maintenance’? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? How tall does it have to be? 10m? 20m? 40m? How many trees need to be removed? 10? 100? 1000? Condition 15 does NOT state a minimum limit, it simply states ANY vegetation clearance.
The developer is acting cynically and recklessly by clearing the site without any regard for the planning condition. The fact that the work is knowingly being carried out during the nesting season demonstrates a total contempt for the planning process.
I have had sight of an email by a planning officer, who has not even visited site, stating that there is no breach of condition. I must say that I am shocked by this heavy and inexplicable bias in favour of the owner, who is in all probability acting criminally.
It indicates that the understanding relating to climate change and loss of biodiversity is not being acted upon at officer level, which goes against the Council’s core objectives.
I attach photographs of the site, taken on Friday 14th July.
I urge the Council to be brave on this matter. If you are concerned that it will cost the Council money to take on the developer, do let me know. I’m sure that many in Rye would be happy to contribute to a crowdfunder to assist the Council, in particular as the housing approved has no tangible benefit to the town, given there is no provision for social housing or affordable housing.
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours sincerely
Dominic Manning RIBA
NB At the time this letter was published in Rye News a reply from Rother District Council was awaited, the article will be updated upon receipt. Editor
Image Credits: Dominic Manning , Juliet Duff .
Well done Mr Manning we need to keep an on these money making contractors .
Thank you for sending this Dominic. To describe the actions as cynical and brutal are exactly right. We were so shocked to see the destruction of trees and shrubs during nesting season. Our wildlife are so precious and deserving of respect and consideration.
Let us hope when the bird nesting is over,this eyesore of a site can be cleared,and also acces for pedestrians who are being denied by the inconsiderate parking of a right of way by selfish motorists, maybe the site would be better used for social housing, something this town is crying out for. as long as it is for locals,like Icklesham.
Well done Dominic for highlighting this outrage.
I am absolutely disgusted by the disregard for the bird nesting season and other wildlife. Are there foxes, badgers and cubs on the site? Do trees and biodiversity desperately needed take second place to private financial greed?
Why are contractors allowed to cut trees in the bird nesting season?
There is no excuse for this and I look forward to seeing the councils reasoning for this devastation and greed.
We have two ongoing issues in Iden where contractors have caused considerable environmental damage to sites allegedly contrary to the planning Inspectors’ conditions. The Rother Enforcement Team have been asked to inspect the sites but inevitably these have been on a retrospective basis and weeks after being instructed, we still await their reports.
We were advised that in respect of one of the sites, the developers have recently seen Rother Planning for a pre application meeting when they had been advised that an ecological survey will be necessary as part of the eventual submission. We understand this includes a dormouse survey. However as the site has already been cleared, the chances are nothing worth protecting will be found
Months ago as a Parish Councillor I asked the pre-application officers at Rother whether they were aware the site in question had been cleared when they met the developers. I have not had any reply.
I am told that is common practice that where undeveloped land is likely to be the subject of a planning application for housing, the cynical way to avoid future complications with wildlife as a condition of any permission is to ensure the land in question is cleared beforehand.
The planning people appear helpless in these situations and I was not surprised to read what has happened at the former school site.
Good luck Dominic, I hope that you will receive at least an acknowledgement from the Planning Department
Thanks for your vigilance, Dominic.
Well done Dominic. It’s after the event and too late but the planners did their bit, as did the community by highlighting the importance of the green corridor beside the railway.
According to a Gov website (December 2022) the law was to be changed in January this year to introduce unlimited fines and custodial sentences for cutting down trees in protected areas. Did the law change? If so, the government has done it’s bit as well.
According to the website, the change was to recognise that developers were cutting down trees in the knowledge that fines were acceptable “if they were prosecuted”!! It reported that the largest fine in recent years was £15,000 for felling 12 oak trees in Hailsham.
The financial gain for removing trees from the protected area alongside the railway must far exceed £15,000. That’s a drop in the ocean compared to the value of the site or the cost of construction.
If the law did change, time will tell whether or not the developer will be prosecuted and, if so, whether the fine (or imprisonment) will reflect the damage caused by breach of the planning condition and protection order. Maybe, crippling fines or imprisonment would stop developers from destroying the environment. That’s if they are not ignorant rather than unscrupulous.
As a citizen and a Councillor I have been involved in past years in moves to prevent this sort of carnage and am bitterly disappointed that this site has been razed with no regard for the ecological implications. I have made my protests and have requested that Rye Councillors robustly support action against the developers/owners. However, once it’s gone, its gone as they very well know.
Maybe if the councils involved had done something to resolve the dispute of two supermarkets fighting over this site,it wouldn’t have come to this,but they sat on the fence,as the old saying goes it’s know good moaning,after the horse has bolted.
Whilst I absolutely agree that this should not be happening in the nesting season; should not be allowed as it contravenes the law; is probably underhanded action by developers and is generally damaging to the present environment and ecological system, East Sussex County Council should take some responsibility for allowing this vacant site to become overgrown and dilapidated to this extent in the first place. Public land should be maintained and made available for public use and if disposed of as in this case should be subject to conditions which require maintenance and management instead of becoming part of the all too familiar “Ryesore” that the approaches to our town present
As others have said, thanks to Dominic for his vigilance and action, I and other Rother District Cllrs received his email and photos with sadness and anger at the destruction of habitat on the former Thomas Peacocke School Site. I am afraid however that the disturbance of wildlife which I do not doubt has happened given the time of year and habitat affected, nonetheless does not seem to be a breach of planning or of the law.
There was a visit to the site early last week by Rother DC Tree Officer when the first complaints about the trees being cut down were received. The conclusion at that time was no protected trees had been cut down or affected, a second investigation the same week was undertaken by the Principal Enforcement Officer again, with the tree officer, the conclusion was the same.
Following that visit and following further complaints about a different section of the site, again Rother senior officers investigated earlier today (Tuesday 25th July) and spent a considerable amount of time on site with the workers they met there. The conclusion was that the area being cleared is a previously developed part of the land. The damage has been reported to the Police (as Wildlife is protected) for their record, however they also have found that no wildlife has been adversely affected and they are not taking any action.
The Rother officers attending this morning were satisfied that contractors are working within the confines of the approved site plan and there is no breach of any conditions attached to the planning permission. Having said this, the letter of the law and planning may have been adhered to but the spirit of the law and care for local habitat has not been a part of the latest action on the part of contractors. We will continue to monitor the situation until a suitable resolution can be found for the site and I strongly welcome resident’s vigilance and engagement with this and all actions that protect our precious environment.
Good to see no planning conditions have been broken on this site,and it’s time for people to move on, and accept this is a brown field,that is also in the neighbourhood plan, to be developed, most people would have loved to have seen the original plan and a supermarket on this site, but thanks too council’s not intervening over the dispute,it was not to be, whether people in this town like it or not, it’s happening, and one less eyesore to worry about in this town.