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.
We were interested to read a report on Rye Town Council’s discussion about the proposed development on the Jempson’s Winchelsea Road site. In particular we were concerned about RTC’s attitude towards the proposed McCarthy Stone development.
The comment (reported in Rye News) that “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” is not necessarily correct. As active residents of Rye, and being of a ‘certain age’, we would like to remain here, as we progress towards needing the type of retirement accommodation provided by McCarthy Stone.
Contrary to views expressed by the Town Council, there is very limited accommodation of this type, available in the town. What retirement properties there are available, are quite dated.
Whereas we support the need for affordable housing there is also a need for quality retirement housing, that will allow us to remain in our community and for us to release our current property onto the market. The council use the term ‘quality’ when referring to the McCarthy proposal, and suggest that this will only attract people from outside the town. We disagree, as we and at least two other ‘locals’ have already expressed interest.
The comment that this development might attract more airbnb can surely be prevented with a clause in the purchasing contract, from McCarthy Stone, and a stipulation in the planning approval.
We trust that a balanced view will be taken, when making the final decision on this project.
I must confess to being rather cynical about the term ‘affordable ‘ housing. Can anyone help? I would like to see ‘social housing’, The period 1945 – 1980 saw 4 .4 million homes built – a rate of some 126,000 pa. Indeed in 1980 some 94,140 social houses were built. I had no real objection to the right to buy but as we know the gaps were never filled.
Why are the older generation disregarded, we’ve paid our dues and in some cases still paying. Retirement housings is desperately needed, I guess the people against such buildings don’t think that there will come a day when they might need such accommodation. Think on.!!!