Ping. An email arrives from Rother District Council. The headline: “People in Rye and Pett will benefit from additional toilet facilities this summer thanks to councils working in close partnership.”
Spoiler alert. There are no “additional toilet facilities”. It’s the ones Rother closed last November.
The press release continues: “Cllr Hazel Timpe, the district council’s portfolio holder for neighbourhood services, said: ‘I’m delighted that residents and visitors to Rye and Pett will now have these facilities available to them throughout the summer months. I would like to thank both Rye Town Council and Pett Parish Council for working with us to take on the management of these conveniences during this period.'”
Leaving aside people are always “delighted” in press releases, the phrase “Working with us” appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
In Rye the two toilets on the Strand and Gun Garden have been re-opened until October thanks to hard work from brilliant local volunteers and hard cash from Rye Town Council. Apart from no doubt lengthy meetings and conversations, all Rother appears to have done is hand over the keys. No transfer of money.
Something that used to be paid for out of the Rother bit of our council tax is now the work of volunteers and Rye Town Council.
It’s probably costing more too – maintaining the toilets was part of a much larger contract with associated economies of scale. Plus it’s diverting time and energy at the town hall away from more pressing issues.
That seems to be the future. Back to the Rother press release. “Like many councils across the UK, Rother District Council faces a large budget shortfall for 2024/25. For that reason, the council took the difficult decision last year to close some of its toilets across the district. For many months the authority has been in discussion with a number of town and parish councils to see if they could take over the management of these conveniences. Once the summer season ends the town and parish councils will decide if they wish to keep these additional facilities open or close them for the winter period.”
Or put another way, the “additional facilities” (which aren’t additional…) are your problem now Rye. You come up with a solution and pay for it.
It’s a similar situation with the Salts in Rye. More cost cutting at Rother District Council and the ending of the grounds maintenance contract in the autumn means local volunteers stepping up here as well, with both Rye Cricket Club and Rye Bowls Club having to up their games and funding to maintain the playing fields.
Whether it’s the toilets or the sports fields we owe a big thank you to the local people who have volunteered many hours of their time. There’s no long term solution for paying for Rye’s public conveniences and there’s a bigger debate to be had on how we maintain The Salts.
Expect more of the same with more cost cutting next year.
Image Credits: Simon Carey CC https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/401772.
Well done all the volunteers and Rye Town Council. I’d just like to know how Rother evaluated what was supposed to be a trial closure.
Thanks for such a well written article James and for putting the records straight. RDC are well practised in the art of self promotion but if they invested the same amount of energy into utilising the enforcement powers they have to make a difference we wouldn’t be seeing Grade 2 listed properties in Rye falling into a dangerous condition of disrepair. 9 Mermaid Street is a prime example, an accident waiting to happen, does anyone care?
Thanks to you James and to Nick too for vigilance in reporting on the persistent dereliction of responsibilities by the RDC and the valuable contribution of local volunteers in response.
Same old story I’m afraid, to many chiefs and not enough Indians making wrong decisions.
Thank you for highlighting the volunteer and Rye Town Council involvement and contribution.
Difficult decisions are by their nature unpopular but Rother would indeed be “derelict in its duty” if it allowed the District finances to follow other unfortunate Councils by declaring itself bankrupt. A much bigger picture is out there and we are acting responsibly and prudently to protect our statutory services.
It seems to me that there has been a general method since 2010, to hand responsibility for public facilities down the political chain. From Central Government to East Sussex County Council and then Rother District Council. Finally, as in the case of local public toilets, the job of maintenance and funding is passed to the lowest rung in the ladder – Town and Parish Councils.
One common feature in this buck passing is taxes never go down to reflect the reduced services!
I suppose it comes down to who has the most to gain from having the facilities open.
Is it the locals or the businesses, granted some are local businesses but many are not.