Monday’s Rye Town Council meeting was primarily dedicated to a review of the three planning submissions from Aldi, Decimus and McCarthy Stone to develop the Jempson’s Winchelsea Road site. Given the importance of the proposals to Rye, it was surprising and disappointing to see virtually no public attendance at the meeting. This was an opportunity for Rye residents either to make comments, disagree or express support to their council representatives.
Let’s hope a wider response is received as part of the formal planning process, with a deadline of August 9 for comments. Points raised by public attendees largely focussed on the implications of increased traffic on the A259, and the lack of attention to the need for affordable housing in Rye.
Low public attendance did not, however, stop a vigorous debate between council members, with each proposal being discussed separately. It was soon clear there was no support for more retirement accommodation. It was generally felt that the need for affordable housing far outweighed exclusive retirement flats that were likely to be occupied by people from outside Rye. This in addition to the resulting load on already stretched medical services. With broad agreement but noting that the final decision lies with Rother District Council, this submission was rejected.
As for Aldi and the Decimus housing proposal, most councillors recognised the general feeling in the town that both projects could have a positive benefit. While there was disappointment that the “affordable” housing element (at least by the government definition) was limited, more houses and a low-cost supermarket were an acceptable use of a “brownfield” site.
However, agreement was by no means unanimous, with some councillors pointing out the possible negative effects of a low-cost food supplier and continuing concern about the type of housing proposed. As well as cost, this also included concern over potential Airbnb purchases, with no real control on who can buy the houses.
Even more importantly, the council was united in insisting that any development must be subject to a rigorous review by National Highways in relation to the effect on the A259. In addition, there was much scepticism that a comprehensive sewerage and flooding plan was in place, and it was considered that Southern Water, the developers and others as required must provide clear plans showing how this will be handled effectively.
In summary, the overall feeling is that this is a site that should be developed but that it should primarily benefit the inhabitants of Rye and the immediate surrounding area. As such, infrastructure issues affecting the wider town must be addressed and any development should help address the dire need for truly affordable living. It was also reiterated that, while our town council has an important input to the planning process, ultimately Rother makes the final decision.
Rye News would like to encourage all affected residents to comment, positively or negatively, on the proposals before the deadline of August 9 via the RDC planning portal. Planning Applications can be found as follows:
Image Credits: Peter Connock , Decimus Housing .
‘However, agreement was by no means unanimous, with some councillors pointing out the possible negative effects of a low-cost food supplier’
Perhaps the author could explain to the less well off, and vulnerable in Rye what ‘the possible negative effects of a low-cost food supplier’ would be?
Maybe the councillors who pointed out the negative effects of low cost food would like to come on here and explain the logic behind their comments.