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
