Inspired by Nick Forman’s Rye News article (February 15, 2024) Town Councillors in total agreement, the following observations and opinions might be of interest.
Experience suggests that the strategy for maximising profit through development, is something like: own an empty or neglected site for a while (so that locals are keen to see it developed); lodge an application for over development of the site; as part of the justification for over development include features that make the site appear very expensive to develop; claim that the site is worth a lot more than it actually is; be patient; slightly reduce the scope of the development and get planning permission.
Now, wait a bit longer and then submit a new application for a slightly different scheme, eventually grinding opposition down and trying the patience of planners to achieve an even more ambitious scheme. Cynically, then build something slightly higher, bigger and different to the permission granted (in the hope that people don't really take much notice at that stage!). It appears to be a “game”, taking up time and money. A large portion of the cost rests with the local authorities, agencies and statutory consultees. In other words, us through our tax and utility bills. It clogs up the planning process and leaves sites as scars within local communities.
Is the site in Ferry Road an example of “the game”?
My understanding is that the site does not currently have planning permission. The previous permission has expired. Does this mean that its value is reduced? If so, is this reflected in the proposal’s viability statement?
Nick’s article reported councillors’ concerns about the proposal to raise the ground level. This would be achieved with imported fill, with a consequent impact of excessive construction traffic on Udimore Road. Is this necessary or is the proposal to raise ground levels by importing fill, part of “the game”?
I am familiar with the development of St Mary’s Island, Chatham Maritime, which was originally marshland on the edge of the river Medway. It is low-lying land in a flood risk area. The development was imaginative and ambitious, with lots of admirable features. Like St Mary’s Island, the site on Ferry Road is low-lying and in a flood risk area.
By careful design, the inclusion of a mix of apartment blocks and housing at St Mary’s Island helped to keep costs down. This was achieved by the inclusion of car parking under the apartment blocks. The excavated soil was spread and compacted to raise ground levels for landscaped areas around houses. That was a “common sense” approach.
A similar approach at Ferry Road would minimise the need to import large amounts of fill material. Undercroft car parking helps to keep cars out of sight; it’s a win-win.
Several developments on similarly low-lying sites in Rye have addressed the flood risk issue by incorporating garages and utility rooms at ground floor level.
So, there are at least two ways to avoid importing vast quantities of fill material, with its consequent impact upon Rye. Is the proposal to import fill included in the submission as part of “the game”? It is likely that the ground conditions at Ferry Road are similar to those on St Mary’s Island. Whether ground levels are raised or not, it is likely that the buildings will need piled foundations. This is common on low-lying sites which were previously in areas that were near marshland or rivers. Piled foundations should not be considered extraordinary in such circumstances (although the need for piled foundations might reflect in the value of the land).
In my opinion, an imaginative proposal for the Ferry Road site would include a mix of high-rise apartments and low-rise houses. The apartment block(s) could perhaps be 4 or 5 storey and have undercroft car parking. High value, large apartments on higher levels would have good views of Rye and the surrounding countryside. This “added value” would help to achieve a viable scheme. The apartment blocks could include lower cost apartments at lower levels.
The high-density, higher parts of the development could be on south-east side of the site, masked by the green corridor beside the railway. Low-rise houses could be on the north-west side of the site. They could have garages and utility rooms at lower ground floor level and gardens. Their design could complement the delightful houses along Tillingham Avenue. The right mix would avoid the need to import excessive amounts of fill.
As a final point, my opinion is that the green corridor north of the railway is extremely important. The south-east side of the site is protected by a TPO. The trees are important visually and for wildlife. In my opinion the development should not encroach significantly into the green corridor. Some sensitive incursion would probably be acceptable but not “total” destruction as is shown on the current planning drawings.
