Three local councils – East Sussex, Hastings and Rother – have asked consultants to put together the economic case for extending the High Speed rail services between London St Pancras and Ashford onwards with through services to Rye, Hastings and Bexhill – cutting journey times from Rye to London to 55 minutes.
The consultants argue this will bring new business, as well as more visitors, to an area which is, by most definitions, elderly, poor and too dependent on visitors – or on the “better off” pensioners. But the figures for new jobs and economic growth, even over a 10 year period, seem comparatively small.
On the other hand more, better paid people might live here if the train services were faster. It could also be argued that the range of shops and other facilities might improve if there was a better balance between “haves” and “have-nots”. But it could also be argued that the school age population is clearly increasing – so the area is becoming “less elderly” anyway. But is it getting “better off”?
Thanet on the other hand (which now has late night trains from London) appears to be recovering from a long downward spiral since the ’60s (when I worked on the Kent Messenger) with the provision of faster, through services from St Pancras and Ashford to Ramsgate. Deal and Sandwich appear on the surface to be younger, livelier and more prosperous than Rye – or indeed Hastings or Bexhill.
We may, however, have a long time to debate these issues. Proposals to redevelop St Pancras and Kings Cross stations and the surrounding area first surfaced in the mid 80s when I first moved into that area (on former railway land) – and it is only now, 30 years on, that my former home is in the shadow of office blocks being built. The High Speed extension may take as long as Heathrow’s extra runway.
It is arguable that commuters may push up house prices (but they are already too high for many, and there is a shortage of affordable housing). It is also arguable that commuting can leave a town empty during the week – but holiday lets and a dependence on visitors can have the same effect outside “the season”. So there will certainly be strong views both “for” and “against” the proposed service.
Rye News welcomes opinions and comments, whether or not we agree with them, but reserves the right to exclude any on legal grounds.
Is there not a case to be made in favour of ‘remoteness’? Aren’t many of those who really love and cherish this area incomers who were attracted to that very quality?
Do we really want Rye and the surrounding countryside turned into yet more of what has become of that once quite pleasant market town, Ashford?
Is that really what people want? Or is it just what they are being sold by people who fulfil Wilde’s definition of a cynic: a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing?
I don’t like the headline for this piece – surely holiday lets help the Rye economy? Guests come to stay in Rye all year round, in holiday mood, spending money in pubs, restaurants and tourist attractions. Holiday lets are also high maintenance and generate jobs for people who service them – cleaning, plumbers, electrics etc).
In contrast I think it’s the second-homes that cause concern – properties that sit dark and empty for long periods.