Rother District Council Town Hall London Road TN39 3JX Attn: Planning Committee Members cc: Mark Cathcart, Planning Officer By email only Your ref: RR/2019/1659/P Our ref: (MOO2/1)-MM/AP Email: 7 August 2020 FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 AUGUST 2020 Re: PGL, Former Pestalozzi Site, Sedlescombe; Application No. RR/2019/1659/P Dear Planning Committee Members, We act for a group of 17 local residents opposed to the above application. There are multiple reasons why we consider that permission for this application should be refused. We have today sent a de- tailed legal letter to the Planning Officer setting out a number of these, which is enclosed (Appendix 1). We are writing here to set out a brief summary of these points, which we hope may assist your consideration of the application: The Fallback Position • The Officer’s Report (“OR”) significantly underestimates the additional floor area that the proposed development represents when compared with the existing permission. (para. 7.4.2) At a minimum, the increase would be 1,217 sqm (50% more than what is said in the OR, excluding the permanent concrete-based ‘tented area’, which would add approximately another 1,050 sqm). This is due to the fact that the OR fails to recognize that Swiss Hall would have to be demolished if the other accommodation onsite were constructed, as this was an integral part of the terms of the 2008 Permission.1 The extant permission has also been misrepresented as the new buildings were replacements and there was no increase to the footprint under those plans. • Contrary to what is said in the OR (para 7.4.3), the plans incorporated into the 2008 Decision Notice do set limits on the accommodation to be provided within the buildings already permitted. However, even if the applicant’s case that there are not was accepted, the Committee must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of the applicant constructing the buildings as permitted and then gutting these to add further accommodation space when considering the proper fallback position.2 Major development in the AONB3 • The relevant question for the Committee on this matter is whether the development could have a significant adverse impact on the AONB’s purposes. (OR 7.4.1) The Committee must 1 For more detail, see our letter at Appendix 1, paras. 4-13. 2 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, [2017] EWCA Civ 1314. For more detail on these points see Ap- pendix 1, paras. 14-18. 3 For more information, see Appendix 1 paras 19-24. consider the change and intensification of use and the built development, taken together, in their local context. It is obvious that there are (at least) potential significant impacts to the beauty, landscape character and tranquility of the AONB (and the AONB unit’s objection supports this). The proposal represents: o A change from (1) a residential facility for up to 60 children who leave to attend school and an associated conference facility centered around a village green and ‘tranquil garden’ to (2) a commercial facility designed to accommodate 541 children engaged in outdoor adventure play with large staffing levels and which essentially provides entertainment/activities during each waking hour the children are on-site. o Increase of at least 1,217 sqm floor area, plus 1,050 sqm tent village, as above o Increasing accommodation available onsite from roughly 280 to 749 o Numerous towering “activity bases” and a watersports pond which will dramatically change the character of the landscape and the use of the site, drawing children away from the previously-designed central spaces towards the periphery (and neigbours). Environmental Impacts • The application infringes advice from Natural England that they would expect the buffer around the ancient woodland to be “significantly larger” than 15 metres. There is new hardstanding within this distance and Accomodation Block 2 is very close to 15 m and certainly not “significantly” farther. Ancient woodland is provided the highest level of protection in the NPPF, requiring wholly exceptional reasons to justify its loss or deterioration. The applicant has also failed to assess operational impacts (noise, coach emissions, etc) on ancient woodland, contrary to Natural England’s guidance.4 • The applicant has failed to assess the cumulative noise impacts from the development, including from the sports pitch, MUGA, and evening activites. But it is clear that far more use would be made of these facilities and PGL makes clear that it provides “fun-packed evening entertainment programmes at all our centres, every day, all year round”. It is therefore wrong of the OR to describe evening activities as “ad hoc” and these must be assessed properly to understand the noise impacts of the development.5 • The Environmental Health team’s reliance on statutory nuisance is simply not good enough from a planning perspective. There is a large gap between a significant adverse impact to neighbouring amenity and something which rises to the level of a statutory nuisance. Reliance on adults present simply ‘controlling’ the noise of children while on an activity break with friends strain credulity (as any parent will know!). • There is an outstanding application for felling 17 trees onsite and works to many others, which the Parish Council has noted seems designed to facilitate certain aspects of the development (such as felling two trees at the site where a passing place for busses is intended). No consideration appears to have been given to the potential cumulative effects of these applications and whether, in combination, they represent EIA development, contrary to the EIA Regulations and Directive. Conclusion In the circumstances, we respectfully ask you to either require that further assessments are undertaken so that you can be properly informed as to the effects of the proposed development, or that you refuse permission. Yours faithfully Richard Buxton Solicitors Environmental, Planning and Public Law 4 For more information, see Appendix 1, paras. 26-33. 5 For more information, see Appendix 1, paras. 34-35. 2 .