As “interested parties” gather for next Wednesday’s (December 9) meeting about the Landgate, it appears that a related issue may be climbing up the agenda – and it is that seemingly boring, and apparently insoluble, problem of traffic and parking in Rye.
As former town councillor Granville Bantick pointed out in his Opinion article the Landgate saga adds yet another element to parking problems in Rye as it could be closed – shutting off the principal entrance to the High Street, possibly briefly, but maybe for even longer – and perhaps permanently.
The Landgate saga, for those not up to speed on it, is that Rye’s historic gateway has been left to rot, urgent repairs are needed, and Rother District Council (to put it politely) wants to dump the problem ancient monument on someone else.
Using it for anything, however, could affect road use through the archway, but – if it can not be used for anything – what is left is the cost of maintaining a ruin, without any income coming in. Hence next week’s summit of “interested parties”.
I observed last month that “the future of the town centre itself and how traffic and parking is managed will inevitably be part of that discussion [the Landgate summit]” though nothing, from experience, is inevitable.
A sensible consequence might be for the Town Council to then ask the Highways Forum and the transport group within the Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (RNPSG) to consider the consequences of the Landgate shutting briefly or permanently.
The RNPSG (which is looking at long term planning policy for the town) has been looking at transport issues, and it now seems they are very much back on the agenda – unless, of course, we simply let the Landgate fall down. But that will cause traffic problems anyway. We could just dump the problem in the lap of the highways authority – East Sussex County Council – but perhaps Rye needs to put on its thinking cap.
Alan Bolden, who chaired the Campaign for a Democratic Rye, (writing to me as a Town Councillor) says he is at a loss at how to tackle the problem – which is, bluntly, how would vehicles enter and leave the town centre, and deliver and collect goods and passengers, if the Landgate is closed.
And this is no longer a theoretical consideration, though that is how the RNPSG may have been approaching it. This is now an immediate and practical issue.
The Landgate needs urgent repairs which means the road will be closed. And, if it is to be used in any way in future, that could mean either the road being closed permanently, or access being limited – with a narrower roadway so people can get into the Landgate tower safely.
As Alan says, this is a “potential massive problem of access to and from the town centre” and “all other problems would pale into insignificance in comparison with this one essential aspect”.
It may well be then that theories about traffic and parking management, which the RNPSG have been debating, actually have to be put into practice – and much, much sooner than expected. And two way traffic along the High Street, and a parking ban, may be one option.
Photo: Rye News library
Image Credits: Ray Prewer .
Would it not be sensible to obtain a legal opinion on whether it is possible to force Rother District Council to honour their obligations to the Landgate before embarking on discussion of any other issue?
It is possible in certain circumstances to get grant assistance for repair works. Grants for the repair of Grade 1 buildings are sometimes available from Historic England. Has anybody tried this yet?
Leaving aside the maintenance of the Land gate, for which a solution must be found by its “owner” Rother DC, the whole aspect of traffic is very much addressed in the draft RNPlan.
V6 proposes a strategic view on our website Rather than 2 way, for which there is no recent precedent for places like Rye, where space is premium, but:
– “intercepting” more visitors in the car parks around the Town’s “ring road”
– consideration of initiatives such as park and ride and out of town commercial delivery intervention.
– for the High St, retention of one way, but,
– adoption of a “shared space” for the High St, bordered by designated bays for disabled, commercial and a few short term (20 min) visitors.
Such a system works well in so many old towns, from Chichester to Canterbury and beyond.
The community should look at what is proposed to tackle these and many other issues raised, and comment to the RNPSG.
The RNP will be legally binding and provides the best opportunity for coming up with a long term solution to the Town’s many issues.
Absolutely agree with Guy Fraser-Sampson. Two-way traffic in the high street would be a nightmare, the road is often a queue of traffic as it is. It would also be a danger to pedestrians who often walk in the road where the pavements are narrow. Don’t waste a second considering this stupid idea, Rother must accept its responsibility to maintain this ancient monument.
Just to clarify: closure of the Landgate for REPAIR is obviously OK with me; any long term solution involving 2 way traffic in the High Street is not.
As someone who spends several months of the year in France, and the rest in Rye, I often wonder why we British get so hung up about parking. Anyone who visits France will know that in most small towns you can usually park almost anywhere, indeed the French frequently concrete cast iron posts in where they don’t want people to park, as no other method would stand a chance. Parking anarchy works fine, in means that people can shop with ease, the traffic automatically gets slowed down to snails pace as thats the only way to get through. Why not give it a try, it will definitely lower the stress levels, ban yellow lines and traffic wardens, more business for shops, its win win !