The patchwork of coastal paths between Camber and Eastbourne, via Rye, is still being developed by Natural England, but one stretch is currently causing controversy.
Martello Development Corporation of Hastings is developing a stretch of land along Rock Channel. The five houses that are currently under construction are believed to be the start of a larger development as once envisioned by Dunn Architects.
The first phase of five houses is nearing completion. But before they can be occupied the issue of riverside access needs to be agreed between the developers and Rother District Council (RDC).
Ordnance survey maps identify an existing Right of Way between the river bank and the new development. RDC’s decision notice on December 12 2016, which allowed the five houses to be built, states that “the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the construction of the riverside walkway on land to the west of the dwellings has been completed in accordance with the approved drawings.”
Martello Developments recently submitted an amended proposal to RDC for the riverside walkway. The developers want to keep the path where it currently is, which is over a metre below the base of the flood defences, but Rye Town Council, and others, have objected on the grounds that the riverside walk will flood and would therefore be dangerous.
This small stretch is one of the final pieces of a nationwide coastal walk. In its study in 2007, RDC laid out a masterplan for the Rock Channel area that included enhanced walking and cycling provision, saying “pedestrian access through the site should be encouraged by improving the existing Right of Way to provide an attractive and coherent walkway that will provide an effective link between the Strand Quay area and the Salts.”
In RDC’s own words “the area appears inhospitable to pedestrians and visitors, the public footpath is poorly signed and the mix of uses here does not encourage public access.” A decision on this revised proposal was expected from RDC by May 24 but at the time of writing it has yet to confirm where the path will be located or how the area is to be made more hospitable. And until there is a decision on the path the houses can’t be occupied.
Editor’s note: Rye News understands – but without firm confirmation – that sale terms on all five houses have been agreed, with prices believed to be over £1 million each. It is not known whether the proposed occupants are currently from this area or whether (as seems likely) these are going to be used mainly as second homes whose owners would, in that case, be likely to contribute little to the town.
Photos: Kevin McCarthy and Rye New library
Image Credits: John Minter .
How on earth this eyesore was allowed to be built is beyond me, not being cynical was it the rumoured art gallery that swayed the council’s decision, to pass this carbuncle on the Rye landscape,which will not benefit anybody local in this town, just more expensive weekend retreats for the rich.
I will be interested to know how the planners eventually succeed with the issue of riverside access. Because succeed they will.
On a different point (re. the Editors note about second home owners not contributing to Rye). I think it’s dangerous and lazy thinking to tar all second home owners with the same brush. I know people who live elsewhere but have bought second homes in Rye and they contribute greatly to the town in many aspects.
Also second home owners often eventuality settle in Rye or live equally in Rye and their original home town
“second homes whose owners would, in that case, be likely to contribute little to the town”
That’s very hostile and entirely uncalled for.
I notice it’s an ‘Editors Note’ So is it this official editorial position of Rye News ?
I entirely agree with Steve Axby.
The editor of Rye News has to be be impartial, otherwise the whole thing is pointless (but it now seems to provide a platform for all the nay-sayers, and people here who automatically oppose change).
And it is not true that people who own a ‘second home’ in Rye are somehow disadvantaging the place. No. They bring revenue here. They pay council tax. They and their tenants spend money in the town.
I think there’s a a difference between ‘ holiday lets’ and ‘second homes’. Rented property is normally occupied throughout the year unlike second homes that aren’t. Of course a generalisation but there are houses that remain empty for much of the time with the owners contributing nothing to the town except increasing the housing problem.
These houses clearly won’t be affordable for the majority of people and I envisage that they will all be sold to weekenders or for holiday lets. So much for affordable housing for first time buyers.
Once upon a time, the real Ryers left in our town, looked at areas like South undercliffe, to purchase their first home and start a family, sadly now anything around the £200k mark, is being snapped up by landlords looking to rent,or let to holiday makers, sadly the whole town is losing its soul, and Rye families children that have to look elsewhere, as they have been priced out of our town.
Vast Shortage of affordable housing for working people yet more houses built for the rich making those that built them even richer!!
Rother District Council if this land could be built upon where is the social housing that is much needed within the district???
The district is full of people with second homes yet people that were born and bred in the district do not even have suitable first homes absolute disgrace!!
Where is the affordable housing the government set targets for local authorities to build all in bexhill and hastings what about local people in Rye!
These houses are at least one storey too high. I have no idea how this was allowed because the intrinsic charm of Rye is that it is a citadel town perched on top of an inland island defended by cliffs. The elevated position of the town on its rocky perch is iconic and a view relished whether approaching from Hastings or the marshes. These houses COMPLETELY hide the cliff elevation, destroying the magic of this view. Rye citadel now appears as simply a continuation of an overdeveloped hillside. This will be worse if as I suspect the development continues right round the town destroying for ever the romance of this magical view from the West. Shame on those who approved it, you have done your town a disservice.
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t, Rye’s run down and under utilized eye sores have been around for years and nobody else has come along with the money or the ideas to change things. It’s a bit late to criticize the development now, The Martello group have bought up a lot of land around Rye and will presumably will be developing that in due course